Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)

Order for Third Reading read.

To be read the Third time on Tuesday 16 May.

GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Tuesday 16 May.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Small-scale Enterprise (Rural Areas)

Mr. Bob Blizzard: If he will revise planning guidance to encourage small-scale enterprise in rural areas. [120139]

The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Michael Meacher): National planning policy guidance already encourages local planning authorities to plan positively for small-scale enterprises in rural areas. In preparing the rural White Paper, we are considering whether that guidance might be strengthened or clarified, consistent with the principles of sustainable development.

Mr. Blizzard: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. If we want a prosperous and sustainable countryside, there must be more opportunities for people to work there, rather than having to go off to towns and cities to work. If farmers are to diversify successfully, as we wish them to do under the rural development programme and rural enterprise schemes, planning guidance must encourage that, and not stand in the way.
Will my right hon. Friend visit St. Peter's brewery in my constituency? It is an outstanding example of rural enterprise, which produces an excellent product and is at one with its rural setting. However, when it was first established, it was in the face of planning, and not encouraged by planning. That example is an instance of

Conservative policy, which seeks to preserve a picture postcard time-warp version of the countryside and does not promote a modern, working countryside.

Mr. Meacher: I am always willing to consider visiting my hon. Friends' constituencies—especially those that contain breweries. The performance and innovation unit report on rural areas suggested that planning was a barrier to diversification. However, analysis of responses to that report shows that some local planning authorities need better to interpret and implement national planning policies to encourage development to meet local needs. However, we are examining the matter and my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning is holding a seminar at the end of the month, which local stakeholders will attend, to see how the planning system can be improved to further assist farm diversification.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman referred to sustainable development. I am sure that greater clarity is needed in the planning process. As the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, there is now a crisis in agriculture and in rural areas generally. I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman to make it clear to planning authorities that there should be a presumption in favour of sustainable small and medium-sized developments.

Mr. Meacher: I am pleased to give that assurance. Policy planning guidance note 7 already gives strong encouragement to local planning authorities to provide for commercial development in their development plans, noting that many commercial and light manufacturing activities are acceptable in rural areas. The note encourages the reuse and adaptation of rural buildings and allows authorities to discriminate in favour of commercial—as opposed to residential—use. Such matters will certainly be raised in the seminar that I mentioned and the Government wish to take the matter further.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I urge my right hon. Friend to give the strongest possible lead to local authorities on implementing sustainable employment schemes in rural areas. As he knows, some of us represent rural constituencies that were massively neglected by the previous Administration and rural Conservative Members for decades. The legacy of poverty, isolation and despair is something to behold and the Government need to act.

Mr. Meacher: We are introducing a rural White Paper soon—later this year—because we realise that rural regeneration, the breakdown of services, social exclusion and rural governance are all problems that were allowed to deteriorate badly under the Conservative Administrations of the past two decades. We believe that the White Paper will redress those problems in a visionary and practical way.

Mr. Damian Green: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, in promoting business, he does not really care whether greenfields are destroyed?


Yesterday, the Daily Express said that, in pursuing development, the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that
greenfield—and even Green Belt—sites could have to be sacrificed
and that
There is no point in waxing lyrical about a green and pleasant land.
Will he confirm that report? Does he agree that there is certainly no point doing so under the current Government? The only joined-up part of their environment policy is the sea of concrete that they want to pour over the green fields of England.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman should not believe all that he reads in newspapers. Let me make it clear that, under the Labour Government, the area of green belt has extended considerably, and building on green belt, which was so noticeable under the previous Administration, has finally been reversed.

New Houses (South-east)

Mr. Howard Flight (Arundel and South Downs): If he will make a statement on the proportion of brownfield and greenfield land to be used to build new houses in the south-east. [120140]

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already made his position clear in his proposed changes to draft regional planning guidance—RPG9. He expects that London will continue to achieve more than 80 per cent. of residential development on previously developed land and he proposes that local authorities in the south-east outside London should seek to achieve at least 60 per cent. of all new housing development on previously developed land.

Mr. Flight: Will the Minister reconsider the Government's figures for West Sussex, which he will be aware cannot be achieved other than on the basis of 60 per cent. greenfield and 40 per cent brownfield, because there is insufficient brownfield land available?

Mr. Raynsford: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. I shall remind him of the figures. Under the existing structure plan—the one that is in force, not the new arrangements—the provision in West Sussex as estimated by the south-east regional planning committee, Serplan, is 3,212 homes per year on average, compared with illustrative figures that we sent out to the chairman of Serplan a couple of weeks ago of 2,930 homes per year. There is no question that we shall impose an unreasonable additional burden on West Sussex—that simply is not true and it is wrong to pretend that it is.

Alan Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend agree that, especially in the south-east, affordability is a key issue in planning future housing development? Does he also agree that a region having housing stock that is out of reach of most of the people living in that region is bad for the future of those people?

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, which is why, in PPG3, the Government placed strong emphasis on making mixed developments,

containing an appropriate balance of affordable housing, an important element of new development where necessary throughout the country. We shall continue to pursue that policy to ensure that all sections of the community have the opportunity to obtain a decent home.

Mr. James Clappison: Is the Minister aware that almost all the land outside urban settlements in my constituency is covered by an existing green belt designation? My constituents derive no comfort from the philosophy expounded by his colleagues, that building on existing green belt can be made up by redesignating green belt elsewhere. Will not that sort of thinking lead to the whole of the south-east, especially the areas just outside London, being concreted over?

Mr. Raynsford: No. As a former Minister, the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge the importance of the evidence, which clearly shows that the Government's target of 60 per cent. of new housing development in the south-east being on brownfield sites can be met. Those figures are confirmed by the national land use database figures, which show that the south-east contains 5,460 hectares of empty brownfield land that is suitable for housing development. It is important that development focuses on brownfield sites, and the Government are absolutely clear about their commitment to achieving that.

Rough Sleepers

Laura Moffatt: If he will make a statement on progress made in reducing the number of rough sleepers. [120141]

Fiona Mactaggart: If he will make a statement on progress made in providing services to rough sleepers. [120147]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We are implementing the proposals in our national strategy "Coming in from the Cold". I am pleased to announce that I have agreed the final step required to ensure that there are enough hostel beds for vulnerable rough sleepers in London. We will spend £9.6 million on 150 hostel beds, which will bring the total to the target set out in the strategy. In December, we met our first milestone of reducing the number of rough sleepers by one tenth. January street counts showed that there had been a fall of around one third in the number of people sleeping rough in central London since June 1998.

Laura Moffatt: That is most welcome news, but I would like to take the argument a little further. Clearly, there is now a commitment to deal with rough sleeping. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most important part of the new package is to ensure that rough sleepers do not return to the streets? Does she also agree that we should share the good practice of many local authorities in and around London, such as short-term accommodation for the young—STAY—in Crawley and the foyer projects of local government, the London and Quadrant housing


trust and the Housing Corporation, which give young people stability and ensure that they do not return to the streets?

Ms Armstrong: My hon. Friend is right; it is very important that we do more, both to prevent people needing to end up on the streets and to ensure that, once we get them inside having slept rough, we sustain their ability to remain in stable accommodation and work with them consistently. Projects such as the ones that she described in Crawley are exactly those that we are seeking to develop throughout the country, so that people recognise that coming to London does not mean pavements covered in gold, and they are able to find a settled life in their home area.

Fiona Mactaggart: I was very pleased to welcome the Minister to Slough to open a practical project at the Look Ahead hostel, offering 18 places, to reduce the number of rough sleepers in our town. It is clear from speaking to its residents that crucial to improving services for rough sleepers is the quality of health care that they receive. Many have had problems with drug and alcohol abuse, and if health services and GPs do not provide them with care, they are likely to return to the streets. Will my right hon. Friend discuss with the Department of Health ways in which it can work with housing projects to improve health care for rough sleepers and former rough sleepers to keep them off the streets?

Ms Armstrong: I was delighted to visit and open the Serena Hall hostel in Slough last week. It is another good example of co-operation between central and local government and the Housing Corporation to ensure appropriate services. We know that many people end up sleeping rough because they abuse drugs or alcohol, but that the necessary services have simply not been available at the time and in the place that they needed them. I assure my hon. Friend that we are already working very closely with the Department of Health. We are joining funds in order to establish contact and assessment teams to pick up people who have specific problems, and to ensure that they come inside and receive appropriate services. Mental and physical health and the tackling of drug and alcohol abuse are central to the strategy.

Mr. James Gray: Will the Minister take this opportunity to pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) who, when he was Housing Minister, launched the rough sleepers initiative, which was so successful under the previous Government? In working out how successful the RSI has been, does she agree that it is important to compare winter figures with winter figures and summer figures with summer figures?
Unlike the figures that the Minister quoted, the reality is that, in June 1998, there were 620 rough sleepers in London, but by June 1999 that number had increased to 635. If one compares winter figures with winter figures, one also finds an increase in the number of rough sleepers in London that is quite contrary to the spin that the Minister put on it. Is she not concerned that the decline in investment in social housing under this Government is

causing a net increase in homelessness—unless one has the good fortune to be provided with a subsidised house by the RMT?

Ms Armstrong: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. Gentleman, but the figures that I gave demonstrate a reduction not only since we began the strategy, but year on year from January to January. I am really sorry that he is not full-heartedly behind the policy. The problem with the previous Government's policy was that about £250 million was spent and much new accommodation provided, but there was no reduction in the number of people sleeping rough. Our strategy builds on what the previous Government did, but goes much further. We believe that it is not necessary for people to live on the streets, and we will make sure that they do not.

New Deal for Communities

Mr. Bob Laxton: If he will make a statement on the progress of the new deal for communities. [120142]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Seventeen new deal for communities pathfinder partnerships have already received offers of long-term support of more than £770 million to help them implement strategies for real change. That funding will help communities tackle interconnected problems, such as unemployment, crime, educational under-achievement and poor health, in a fully integrated and joined-up way. A second round of 22 areas across England, including Derby, have submitted their proposals for achieving long-term sustainable regeneration.

Mr. Laxton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He referred to the bid from my constituency, Derby, North. May I stress the need for the bid to go through smoothly? Can my right hon. Friend assure me that the decision on that will be taken on 22 May? To illustrate the strength of the bid, may I read two quick paragraphs from a vision statement—

Hon. Members: No.

Madam Speaker: Order. This is Question Time. The hon. Gentleman should save that for an Adjournment debate.

Mr. Prescott: As my hon. Friend said, Derby is one of the new areas under consideration. It is clear that a number of areas in Derby are greatly in need of such a programme. We will make the decision as quickly as we can.

Mr. Archie Norman: Can the Deputy Prime Minister say how much less the Government spent on urban regeneration last year than was spent in the last year of the previous Government?

Mr. Prescott: At well over £2.5 billion, our regeneration programme is considerably more substantial in its direction and concentration in regeneration areas and developments.

Mr. Norman: The Deputy Prime Minister has again failed to answer the most basic question. May I commend


to him for bedtime reading his Department's own annual report, which states that £1.4 billion was spent last year on regeneration programmes, as against £17 million less under the previous Conservative Government? Does he accept that, whatever the good intentions, and for all the repeated announcements and reheating of old rhetoric, the new deal for communities has been treacly slow to get off the ground? Does he agree that the local election results last week in London, Hartlepool, the midlands and many other urban areas were a clear verdict on Labour's failure to deliver for its urban heartlands?

Mr. Prescott: When the hon. Gentleman has been in the House a little longer, he will understand the kind of problems that we inherited from the previous Administration. In the areas that we have identified to be new deal communities, the mortality rate is 30 per cent. higher than the average, and levels of unemployment, burglary and other problems associated with new deal areas are considerably higher. We have developed selected programmes in health, education and tackling crime, all to be added to the regeneration programme, in addition to the £800 million that has been designated for the new deal areas. That is the scale of resources that we are directing at those problems, and it is much greater than under the previous Administration.
The amount of money going into social housing was mentioned earlier. The Government put £5 billion of capital receipts from the sale of council houses into improving housing in those areas. Money on that scale was kept back by the Tories, who preferred to keep the interest payments rather than improve houses.

Mr. Hilary Benn: May I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the powerful film by Fergal Keane, which was shown on BBC television last night and dealt with the Lincoln Green estate in my constituency? I am glad to say that, since the film was shot, a start has been made on regenerating that area. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all the people in the area who are working to make it a better place to live? Incidentally, there was a swing to Labour in the local elections there last Thursday. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is precisely the kind of estate that could benefit from new deal for community funding?

Mr. Prescott: I quite agree. My hon. Friend has drawn attention to the key point of community involvement in the schemes. They are not simply about councils getting together, but are about the community's active involvement and different Departments joining up to ensure that the schemes are directed positively. All the schemes show a willingness to innovate and a long-term commitment to deliver. We have adopted precisely that strategy, and it fits the example that my hon. Friend cited.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the new deal has been a poor deal for constituencies such as the Vale of York, and that it has failed dismally to help the young unemployed or communities? The Deputy Prime Minister should focus the Government's attention on processing applications for state aid for pig farmers and for Rover. That would help industry much more than his four schemes.

Mr. Prescott: I think that the hon. Lady has mixed up several schemes. We are considering the new deal for

communities, whereas she referred to the new deal on unemployment. The scheme that she mentions is working. As we promised, we are getting more and more people back to work, and there has been a 70 per cent. reduction in youth unemployment; that is an important achievement.
The hon. Lady also mentioned farming and Rover. We shall hear a statement on the latter shortly. I simply point out that the previous Government sold Rover for £1 and left us with all the problems.

Homelessness

Mr. Patrick Hall: If he will make a statement on progress made in combating homelessness. [120143]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): Shortly after taking office, the Government introduced secondary legislation to strengthen the safety net for households accepted as statutorily homeless and ensure that they were given reasonable preference in the allocation of permanent local authority housing. The housing Green Paper, which was published on 4 April, includes proposals to fulfil the Government's election manifesto promise to place a new duty on local authorities to protect those who are homeless through no fault of their own, and whose needs are a priority.

Mr. Hall: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. I welcome the proposals in the Green Paper and look forward to their development in the Bill. Will my hon. Friend consider taking further the steps that the Green Paper outlines by placing a duty on local councils to prepare and publish comprehensive strategies to prevent homelessness? That would be the best way forward. I understand that the homelessness taskforce in Scotland has made such a proposal. Will my hon. Friend consider extending it to England and Wales?

Mr. Mullin: There is a strong emphasis in the Green Paper on preventative work. We should like local authorities, in partnership with the voluntary sector, to take a more strategic approach to tackling the causes of homelessness and preventing their recurrence. The housing Green Paper includes a proposal to require local authorities to carry out an audit of all forms of homelessness in their areas and the provisions for dealing with it. They will be required to consult locally on their findings and the steps that they propose for dealing with any problems. They will also be required to incorporate their findings and proposed actions in their housing strategy. The Green Paper is a consultative document, and we shall consider carefully the responses to it.

Mr. Nigel Evans: On Sunday evening, I walked past nine people sleeping rough outside the Army and Navy store in Victoria street. Clearly, the Government's action is deficient. What further action and incentives can the Government introduce to ensure that extra places are made available for those who sleep rough in London?

Mr. Mullin: More beds are available for the homeless in central London now than at any time in the past. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is right. People slept


rough under Tory Governments and people sleep rough under Labour Governments, but we are trying to do something about it. We are doing a darn sight more than the previous Government.

Beacon Councils Scheme

Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the progress of the beacon councils scheme. [120144]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The scheme is making excellent progress. More than 1,500 delegates have already attended roadshows to learn from beacon best practice. We have also announced 11 new themes for the second year, all of which involve council services that directly affect people's lives and the communities in which they live.

Mr. Cunningham: Will my hon. Friend commend Coventry city council for achieving beacon status? It was one of six councils to do so, out of about 90 applicants. Will she also commend the Coventry partnership for achieving a 44 per cent. reduction in crime overall and a 25 per cent. reduction in retail crime? Does she agree that that is a tremendous achievement and a pointer in the right direction for the Government's policies?

Ms Hughes: Yes; we were pleased to be able to award beacon status to Coventry city council last year. That reflected its excellence in preventing local shopping and town-centre crime and disorder and its overall good performance, to which my hon. Friend alluded. The particular strength was its partnership with the police and local business. As well as achieving the reductions that he mentions, it has led to greater use of shops and car parks in the city centre and has therefore had a beneficial effect on shoppers and local businesses.

Mr. Tony Baldry: With so many councils now back under Conservative control, will the Minister set out objectively and transparently the criteria used to select beacon councils and beacon schemes so that there can be no scintilla of a suggestion of political partiality in their selection?

Ms Hughes: We shall have to see what the implications are for the overall performance standards of those councils that have changed to Conservative control. The record of Tory authorities on performance in local services is not good. The hon. Gentleman will have read the prospectus on beacon status schemes, so he will know that an advisory panel applies clear and rigorous criteria in judging the many applications from across the political spectrum. He will also know that councils controlled by all political parties were awarded beacon status in the first phase of the scheme.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Will my hon. Friend ensure that there will be incentives for district councils, not just the metropolitan and unitary authorities, to apply for beacon status?

Ms Hughes: Certainly. There is now a list of 11 themes for the second year of the beacon councils scheme,

including a wide range of services that are important to local people. Many are delivered at district level. We have tried to ensure that the scheme includes the services that county councils deliver so that they can participate. It also includes cross-cutting themes so that we can encourage those councils that are making good progress in integrating their services across several departmental areas. As in the first phase, I am sure that councils will be tremendously interested in applying for beacon status.

Road Improvements

Mr. Ian Bruce: What progress has been made towards completing the schemes in the targeted programme of road improvements. [120145]

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): My noble Friend Lord Whitty confirmed on 3 February that we would let contracts for 13 of the 37 schemes this year. The Government have provided an additional £25 million in the Budget to enable contract awards for six schemes to be brought forward. We have announced the addition of four schemes to the programme. Government policy on roads is no longer based on the old system of predict and build; it is based on the new approach to appraisal, against the five criteria of environmental impact, safety, economy, accessibility and integration.

Mr. Bruce: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer. He will know that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), is coming to view the Dorchester relief road, which is in my constituency, on 13 July. He will also know that that scheme was ready to be built when the Government came to power and that they have become unpopular by cutting road schemes. May I urge him, in a spirit of cross-party support, to come to the aid of the Weymouth and Portland Labour party, which lost so heavily, and the Liberal Democrats, who control the county council and lost even more heavily in my constituency, and award them that scheme, which will be universally welcomed by all political parties?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman was doing quite well in impressing me until the second part of his question. His criticisms about cutting road programmes should be directed to the previous Conservative Government. The 500 road schemes decided in 1990 represented a wish list, because 60 per cent. of them had not seen the light of day before the previous Government left office.
The great majority—236—had been cancelled, along with other programmes.
The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) should be aware of the situation. As he has said a number of times in the House, he has waited 11 years for improvements to the A21. I am pleased to tell him that the Government have now agreed to the implementation of the Lamberhurst bypass scheme.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: Devon county council, which is run by the Liberal Democrats, underspent by £1.4 million on its roads maintenance budget last year, despite the appalling condition of the roads in my constituency. I fell off my bike recently, having hit one


of the many potholes that are the result of the council's incompetence. Is that not another argument for the Deputy Prime Minister to give Exeter city council—another beacon council, Labour run—control of its own affairs, and the unitary status that it so desperately needs?

Mr. Prescott: I agree with a great deal of what my hon. Friend has said. This is really about road programmes. I should apologise to the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce): the Weymouth relief road is a local road, the improvement is among those that we are considering, and we have talked to the local authority about it. We are not too happy about the scheme that they have presented, but we are discussing how they might present it in a way more acceptable to us.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: How can the Deputy Prime Minister say that he really cares about our crumbling road infrastructure and keep a straight face, given that he is spending less than the Conservative Government on road maintenance? Will he confirm figures that I have obtained from the House of Commons Library, which reveal that he is not only spending less than the average spent by the previous Government on road maintenance, but spending less on transport in total—less on local transport grants and credit approvals, less on infrastructure improvements and trunk roads on motorways, less on London Transport and less on support for the railways? When will he admit that the only programme on which he is spending more—an extra £100 million—is that represented by the running costs of his own Department? How is he to improve the transport infrastructure if he continues to lose all his battles with the Treasury?
Is it not the case that, as the Government tax motorists £36 billion a year—£1 in every £7 that they spend comes from the motorist—the Deputy Prime Minister is delivering less and less? Is that not why we say that his Government tax more and deliver less?

Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman's rant is just not true. The resources that we have provided for maintenance are a considerable increase on what was provided by the previous Administration. We have spent £2.8 billion on trunk road maintenance; the previous Administration cut road maintenance spending considerably.
As for the overall figures, because in our first two years of government we decided to accept the expenditures laid down by the previous Government in their Red Book, they may seem lower. Our priority is finding a way in which to begin to improve public transport, while also giving greater priority to road maintenance. We are doing that, and it is beginning to have an effect.
I will take no criticism of the state of our roads from those who supported the previous Administration, who spent 18 years in government. The roads are in the worst possible state because of a lack of investment over the past 10 or 15 years.

Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: Given the encouraging progress on the roads programme to which my right hon. Friend referred, and the fact that the A21 is at the forefront of his mind, may I ask him

whether, if—as is assumed—the access to Hastings study will result in a yes later this summer, the scheme will get somewhere in the next few years?

Mr. Prescott: As we said in our paper on the roads programme, the 37 schemes that we identified are to go ahead; the others were passed to local authorities to consider in their transport plans. As I said to the hon. Member for South Dorset, some are to be dealt with in that way. We will give them the order of priority, and exercise the criteria, laid down in our paper.

Local Authority Funding

Mr. Steve Webb: When he expects to bring forward proposals for the reform of the system of allocating funds to local authorities by reference to standard spending assessments. [120146]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): Decisions about the merits of the various options for reform will not be taken until we have consulted widely this summer.

Mr. Webb: Does the Minister accept that, for my constituents in South Gloucestershire, SSA might as well stand for "schools short-changed again", because for as long the council has existed, it has been the worst-funded local education authority in the country in terms of primary schools? Does she accept that my constituents will be angry if a whole Parliament goes by without reform of that unfair scheme? Will she tell them today that, before the current Parliament is through, we will have a fairer scheme in place?

Ms Armstrong: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows from previous Question Times, I am keen for us to move to a new form of funding, but that requires co-operation from local government, as well as ideas and determination from central Government. We have a system that I support, which recognises that different parts of the country need different levels of support from central Government. We believe that we should respond to need, and it is from that basis that we start.
I hope that we can move forward, but there is no holy grail. What is important in one area has a different priority in another. What is seen as fair in one authority is seen in very different ways in others. I am sure that constituents of other hon. Members will feel that they have as much right as any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents to get an uplift. We will do what we can but, as I say, we need the co-operation and support of hon. Members and local government to move forward.

Mr. Keith Darvill: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the system of allocating local authority funds creates too many inequalities and anomalies? For that reason, it is important that the review be carried out as quickly as possible to ensure that local authorities such as the one in my area, the London borough of Havering, can resolve some of their difficulties in delivering public services.

Ms Armstrong: We knew when we came to power that there were great problems within the local government finance system. We have made some adjustments.


More than that, we have substantially increased the amount of money going into local government compared with what went in under the previous regime. It is a question of ensuring both that we run the economy to get more money for good public services, and that we get a distribution system that is as fair as possible. We are seeking to do that, but I repeat: there is no holy grail and no system that everyone will think is fair to them.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: Will the Minister undertake not to repeat the outrageous fix whereby, in the life of the current Parliament, shire counties will lose out by £623 million? Will she abandon the so-called front line first policy, under which funds will be diverted from properly elected local councils, with funding decisions being made by Ministers in Whitehall? The move was attacked recently by Sir Jeremy Beecham, the Labour leader of the Local Government Association, as amounting to
the strange death of local democracy.

Ms Armstrong: Let me nail once and for all the absolute rubbish that the hon. Gentleman comes out with time and again about funding for shire areas. Far from the position that he suggests, we have put substantially more money into local government in the past three years, including into the shires. If shire authorities received the same amount of money now as they received under his regime, they would be receiving substantially less. We have uplifted the amount that has gone in, and his crazy creative accounting fools no one.

Mr. Jeff Ennis: Does the Minister agree that the grand objective of the review should be to reduce the differentials between the winners and losers under the existing system?

Ms Armstrong: That could be one objective. We are canvassing a range of objectives. My hon. Friend needs to recognise that if we reduce the differentials, we also take less account of differential need.

Council Tax

Mr. David Heath: What is the average percentage increase in council tax for residents of band D properties in shire districts of England in 2000–01 from the previous year. [120149]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The average band D council tax for residents in shire districts is £848, an increase of 6.6 per cent. However, I think that a more accurate representation of what people really pay is the average council tax per dwelling. For shire districts, that figure is £735, an increase of 6.7 per cent.

Mr. Heath: Whether the figure is 6.6 or 6.7 per cent, is it not true that the ordinary member of the public does not understand a word that we say about area cost adjustments and standard spending assessments? The public understand only that—regardless of who controls their council, and of their council's location and efficiency—each year, their council tax increases, while councils struggle to maintain services. Is that situation not the result of the fact that the current Chancellor, and

previous Chancellors in previous Governments, have shifted the taxation burden from central Government to local government? Is it not time that we had a system that was transparent and honest?

Ms Hughes: The hon. Gentleman says that it does not matter who controls a council, but the fact is that in Labour-controlled authorities, the average council tax per dwelling is lower by about £100 than it is in Conservative-controlled or Liberal Democrat-controlled authorities. As for the Government's record—I shall not even begin to try to speak for the previous Government—we have increased the grant to local authorities by 8 per cent. in real terms. Moreover, in the three years since the previous general election, unlike the three years leading up to it, that increase has allowed local authorities to increase spending by about 20 per cent, compared with a real-terms spending cut and diminution in service standards under the previous Government.

Mr. David Taylor: Is the Minister aware of the formation, last month, of the all-party fair deal for shire districts group, which I have the honour to co-chair? Does she agree that part of the problem is the fact that the SSA system fails to recognise the needs of smaller urban and semi-rural areas—areas such as North-West Leicestershire—which have growing populations and significant levels of unemployment and deprivation? Is she confident that the reform to which the Minister for Local Government and the Regions referred a moment ago will produce a better and more effective system for shire districts?

Ms Hughes: As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said, we are hoping that the creation of a fairer system will be the outcome of our review. However, such a system will depend on co-operation from all types of local authorities. If we are talking about a system that distributes money differently, we must be able to reach agreement not only with the authorities that might benefit from a different system, but with those that might feel that the current system is in their interests. Achieving that consensus is important.
I acknowledge my hon. Friend's work in promoting the interests of shire districts, and I can tell him that, while working on the review, the Government have given shire districts a much fairer settlement than they have received in previous years. This year, I myself met representatives of the district councils, and they were very pleased with the settlement, which is well above the average for English authorities.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: The Minister for Local Government and the Regions told my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) that he was wrong to say that the Government were starving shire counties of funds. Can the Under-Secretary therefore explain why, this year, residents of the shire district of Worcestershire—which has a Labour-controlled council—are facing a council tax increase of almost 10 per cent? Are they facing that increase because the Labour-controlled council is inefficient? Are they facing it because the Government are starving the shire district of Worcestershire of funds that rightfully belong to it? Or is the increase—as Opposition Members believe—part of the Government's programme of stealth taxes? Can the


Minister also explain to the pensioners of Worcestershire how they will pay that increase with the measly 75p increase in their pensions?

Ms Hughes: Perhaps I can begin to attempt to unravel that ragbag of a question. I remind the hon. Lady that a council tax increase in any local authority is a direct consequence both of Government grant—which has increased—and of councils' decisions on their spending. It is right that local people, as well as Government, should contribute to the improvement of local services. The Tories are pursuing the argument—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."' I am answering the question as I choose to answer it. The Tories are pursuing the argument about stealth tax, but their figures are absolutely wrong. The Government have increased grant to local authorities in real terms by 8 per cent., compared with a real-terms cut of more than 4 per cent. by the previous Government. That demonstrates the different commitment of this Government to local government and local services.

Disadvantaged Communities

Mr. Bill Rammell: What steps he is taking to ensure that local people are involved in renewing disadvantaged communities. [120150]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): The active involvement of local people is critically important in regenerating deprived neighbourhoods, as recognised in the social exclusion unit's recently published consultation document on the national strategy for neighbourhood renewal. My Department's programmes, particularly the new deal for communities and the single regeneration budget, already place great emphasis on the genuine involvement of local people at all stages.

Mr. Rammell: Will my hon. Friend confirm that when it comes to regenerating disadvantaged communities, between 1999 and 2002 this Government will spend six times as much as the Conservatives did during their last three years in office, simply in terms of the single regeneration budget? Will she confirm that it is not just a question of money, and that it is essential that local people are involved in the process that decides how the money is spent? Will she confirm that when we talk about disadvantaged communities, we are not talking only about areas in the north of England, Scotland or Wales, because some are in the south of England?

Ms Hughes: I can confirm my hon. Friend's point about money. Across the board since May 1997, the Government have spent almost £5.5 billion on regeneration schemes. That has been spent by my Department, and in education, health and elsewhere. That shows our commitment to regeneration and to helping those who were disadvantaged for two decades under the previous regime. We have learned from previous approaches to regeneration that unless local people are involved from the outset, and unless they have a say in decisions about priorities for their areas and how those should be achieved, any change will not be sustainable. My hon. Friend will see that the new deal for communities has been applied outside urban areas because there are

pockets of deprivation in all parts of the country, and the Government are committed to tackling deprivation wherever it occurs.

Road Haulage Forum

Mr. John Bercow: When he last met the road haulage forum to discuss transport issues. [120151]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): The last meeting was on 17 April.

Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that informative reply. Given that the much-trumpeted cut in vehicle excise duty applies to only a tiny minority of heavy goods vehicles, will the Minister recognise that with fuel now by far the most expensive in Europe, with domestic profit margins slashed to the bone, with heavier foreign trucks seizing British business and with the Government taking seven times as much from the vehicle user as they spend on roads, his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State remains in the sights of road hauliers in my constituency as public enemy number one?

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman ought to contain himself—he is not on Lambeth council any longer. I do not recognise the true views of the road haulage industry in his remarks. This year's Budget gave a substantial boost to the trucking industry. For most lorries, real-terms taxation remained the same, and for some—notably the 40-tonne, five-axle lorry—the 10 per cent. cut in vehicle excise duty, worth £45 million, will provide an important boost to the international competitiveness of the UK haulage industry. In addition, the industry will benefit from increased spending on congestion hot spots and new roads schemes out of the extra £280 million for investment in transport announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As the Freight Transport Association said:
For transport, this has been a positive Budget.
It knows what it is talking about, even if the Opposition clearly do not.

Mr. Don Foster: Have not all those meetings with the forum clouded the Government's judgment? Is it not simply because of pressure from the forum that they have made the ill-judged decision to introduce 44-tonne lorries? Why have they listened only to the forum and totally ignored the advice from the major railfreight operator EWS, which has made it absolutely clear that the introduction of those lorries will reduce by 19 per cent. the share of freight carried on our railways? Will the Minister at least accept the need to do something and consider reducing railfreight access charges?

Mr. Hill: The introduction of the 44-tonne lorry announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget was made at the recommendation of the Commission for Integrated Transport, which calculated that it would reduce lorry trips by about 100 million a year. That is a significant contribution to the environment, and this Government, with our well-known commitment to the environment, are delighted to have made that judgment.

Non-domestic Properties

Mr. Bill O'Brien: If he will make a statement on progress in (a) the revaluation of non-domestic properties in England and (b) the revising of the distribution of the income from non-domestic council tax payments. [120152]

The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): The rating revaluation of non-domestic properties took effect on 1 April. We have no plans to revise the way in which the income from non-domestic rates is redistributed back to local authorities, the current redistribution being based on the size of the local population.

Mr. O'Brien: May I draw attention to the problems and difficulties that small businesses are facing in town and city centres because of the revaluation of their properties? It is incumbent on the Government to ensure that that hardship is reduced in all ways possible. On the redistribution of income from non-domestic rates, may I draw attention to the fact that the Conservative Government withdrew the support to parish and town councils from the industrial rate? Will my right hon. Friend consider reinstating some of that resource to the smaller authorities so that they can generate much greater interest in their communities and provide the necessary services that come with parish and town council status?

Ms Armstrong: The revaluation, which took effect on 1 April, means that the amount paid nationally in rates remains broadly the same, even though rateable values have increased by 25 per cent. That is because the rate poundage has been reduced from 48.9p to 41.6p. My hon. Friend will also want to know that we have recognised the particular pressures on small businesses, so for this year the maximum increase for any small business is 5 per cent., and in subsequent years it will be 7.5 per cent. At the same time, we have raised the level defining a small business to £12,000.
We are to publish a White Paper on rural policy this year, which, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said earlier, will allow us to examine governance in rural areas. As part of that we will consider some of the issues concerning parishes. In the local government finance Green Paper, we will also be able to consider the specific issue that my hon. Friend has raised.

Empty Properties

Mr. Norman Baker: What steps he is taking to minimise the number of empty properties. [120153]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): We have successfully encouraged a significant number of local authorities to adopt empty homes reduction strategies. From this year, we are requiring all authorities to publish indicators of their performance in managing their own stock and returning private sector vacant stock to use. We have set up an empty property advisory group to develop an effective policy aimed at building on the steps that we have already taken.

Mr. Baker: Before the Minister authorises the carpeting of what is left of greenfield Sussex with thousands upon thousands of new houses, will he take steps to change the council tax system, which gives a perverse incentive to leave properties empty? In Lewes district 812 properties get a 50 per cent. discount for being second homes or holiday homes, and 383 properties that get a 100 per cent. discount because they are unoccupied for six months or more. Will he have a word with the Chancellor, so that leaving properties empty will attract a penalty, not a benefit, for the owner?

Mr. Mullin: The hon. Gentleman makes a serious point—up to a point. We shall examine in the White Paper the issue that he raises about empty properties. Although his question was phrased in a rather churlish way, the local council in Lewes has made quite good progress in reducing the number of empty properties, which has just about halved in the past four years. We would like other local authorities to emulate that example.

Rover-BMW

The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): With permission, I would like to make a statement concerning the latest developments at Rover.
Earlier today, BMW announced that it had agreed to sell Rover cars to the Phoenix consortium. Negotiations have been concluded and contracts signed. This is clearly good news—for the workers at Longbridge and the wider community in the west midlands. I am sure that it is news that all hon. Members will welcome, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Burden) who is at Longbridge this afternoon and has worked hard to support the work force during this difficult period.
The agreement reached earlier today will preserve volume car manufacture at Longbridge; it will safeguard the majority of jobs there and minimise the knock-on effect in the supply chain.
I would like to add my personal congratulations to John Towers for the way in which he pulled the consortium together and brought what I know have been difficult negotiations to a successful conclusion. He has been determined and dogged in the face of hostility and criticism. His personal strengths will be invaluable to the Phoenix consortium.
Since BMW's decision to sell Rover, the Government's main concern has been with the workers at Longbridge, Rover suppliers and the communities affected. They have faced a considerable period of uncertainty over the past six weeks. It has been something of a rollercoaster period for them—swinging between dismay and hope as their future was decided in various negotiations with BMW.
Today's news finally provides some welcome certainty for the Longbridge site. However, there will still be a number of redundancies. Our priority now is to do everything that we can to help those who will be affected, to provide training and to attract new jobs to the area. That is the role of Government—to manage change and to equip people for change, not to leave them the innocent victims of change.
We have always been clear that the role of Government is not to run commercial negotiations between the interested parties. The Phoenix consortium has not sought Government finance for its proposals. John Towers has always been clear with me that the Phoenix bid had to be viable on its own and would get funding from commercial sources, and that is the case.
The Government have not played the old role of throwing money at a problem in the hope that it would go away. Nor have we adopted the laissez-faire attitude of the previous Government—just standing to one side and doing nothing. Instead, we have taken an active role to facilitate the commercial negotiations over the future of Rover, and to provide support for those workers and companies adversely affected by commercial decisions.
Our role has been to bring people together and to move the negotiations forward. It was the Government who brought John Towers and BMW together for their first face-to-face meeting a month ago on 10 April and we have remained in contact with both parties throughout the negotiations.
We must now turn our attention to those who will be adversely affected by today's announcement. I am pleased that most of the work force will be offered a future at Rover, but we need to provide support for those who, regrettably, will lose their jobs. The Government will do all that we can to help.
I can announce that the taskforce that we created will remain in place, and I expect that its continuing work will take account of all developments, including today's announcements and the consequences for suppliers. It will produce a final report to me at the end of June.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and I have already put in place measures to assist any workers made redundant, to help affected supplier companies and to assist in attracting new investment and employment. Those measures will remain in place.
I am also able to confirm that the £129 million promised to the taskforce will remain available for good-quality projects in the region that provide long-term economic regeneration and job creation.
We must not underestimate the remaining difficulties ahead. The new owners of Rover will have to sell cars in a highly competitive market. The car industry is a fast-moving global market, going through major structural change. These are difficult times for vehicle manufacturers throughout the world, but a number of recent announcements have shown the strength of vehicle manufacture in the United Kingdom.
Last week, Vauxhall announced £189 million of new investment, creating 500 new jobs in its Luton factory. Honda has announced £130 million of new investment in Swindon; Peugeot has doubled production; Jaguar achieved record sales and record production in 1999; and last month's sales figures showed that British-built cars increased their sales in the United Kingdom, against the general trend.
There will be many lessons to be learned from Longbridge, which we will need to reflect upon. However, it is clear that there can be no return to outdated interventionism. The corporate state has been tried, and it simply did not work. Neither did a naive reliance on laissez-faire, which led to a crippling obsession with what Government should not do. The role for Government is to create an environment that encourages enterprise and creates wealth and jobs—[Interruption.] A third way, if the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would have it so.
Today belongs to John Towers, the Phoenix consortium, the workers at Longbridge and the people of the west midlands. Through adversity, they have all demonstrated great strengths, and we look forward to working with them to meet the challenges that lie ahead.

Mrs. Angela Browning: We welcome the fact that the Phoenix bid has been secured. We are particularly encouraged that it attracted financial support from the market.
It is nearly a year since the Secretary of State said that the long-term future of Longbridge was secure. He said today that there are lessons to be learned. I hope that this time, he and his Department will at least take an interest in the progress of Rover, and not be the last to know what is happening in an important industry in the UK.


Although we have followed with interest the information that has come out today, I have some questions for the Secretary of State. Phoenix has taken over production of the business, but has it also acquired all the assets at Longbridge? What is the Secretary of State's understanding of the long-term future of the Swindon plant, on which Phoenix now has an option? Can he confirm exactly how many redundancies are expected?
How will today's announcement impact on the Rover dealerships? Are their futures secure? Does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate supporting applications for European Union funds for the company or for the region? What arrangements have been made for the export distribution of Rover, which has been locked into the BMW operation in Munich?
When the R30 was proposed, I asked the Secretary of State in a written question what impact that would have on UK suppliers. He replied that the R30 would provide opportunities for UK suppliers. Does the Phoenix bid continue to offer opportunities for UK suppliers?
Finally, how confident is the Secretary of State about the much-needed investment in the short term before Rover breaks even in two years' time?

Mr. Byers: I think that there will be disappointment on both sides of the House that the hon. Lady was not able to congratulate John Towers on the role that he has played. There will be disappointment that the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who has criticised John Towers and Phoenix throughout the exercise, is not even in the House this afternoon for the statement.
The reality is that the people of Longbridge and of the west midlands will judge the Conservative party by its response to this issue. It ill becomes Conservative Members to talk about playing party politics with this issue, because that is exactly what they have done throughout. While we were getting our sleeves rolled up and doing the work, they were doing nothing. They were issuing press releases and notices that did not help the negotiations at all.
The reality is that there is a new owner for Rover, with a viable future—and with the commercial decisions that will have to be taken. However, it is not the job of Government to intervene in those commercial decisions. The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that the dealer network supports the proposal; the network is part of the Phoenix consortium.
As for the assets at Longbridge, we know that Hamshall—the engine facility—and Powertrain will be retained in the ownership of BMW. There will be developments at Longbridge which BMW and, no doubt, the Phoenix consortium will need to discuss.
The matter offers a clear lesson about the role of Government. The negotiations have been commercial; we have brought people together and I am pleased that there has been a successful conclusion. However, it is not part of our role to intervene in the way suggested by the hon. Lady. That is not the part that we shall play. We intend to support and facilitate. John Towers and Phoenix have made it clear that they have no proposals for applications for public finance, so I do not intend to answer a hypothetical question.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. He has not had the easiest

of rides over this issue, but, were it not for his persistence in backing the Phoenix proposal and ensuring that it was on the agenda, we should not have reached this stage. In congratulating John Towers on his persistence, we must give due credit to the persistence displayed by my right hon. Friend.
I do not want to strike a sour note, but I have one question. The sums involved are comparatively small when set against the ambitions for the new models that are being developed. Is there any evidence that further funding could be available? I realise that the Government have no responsibility whatever to achieve such funding, but, as my right hon. Friend has played a part in bringing people together, can he tell us anything about the further investment that will be necessary for the survival and success of the scheme?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is correct. There have been some difficult times over the past few weeks—some of them, I have to point out, created by his Select Committee, although I do not want to dwell on that point; the Trade and Industry Committee played a valuable role in the process.
On the substance of my hon. Friend's question, the Phoenix consortium is clear that, for the foreseeable future—the short and medium term—it has a viable project. However, the consortium makes it clear that it wants to enter a joint venture or an alliance with a major global car manufacturer for the long term. The consortium has been precise publicly as to its intentions: the short and medium-term approach is to safeguard the maximum number of jobs at Longbridge, but it is looking for an alliance with a global player in the near future so as to develop in the way described by my hon. Friend.

Dr. Vincent Cable: May I add a warm welcome to the announcement, and extend congratulations to Mr. Towers and his team—singling out Mr. Hemming in particular—in the face of much scepticism?
In view of the new arrangement, will the Secretary of State assure me that the Department of Trade and Industry has ceased all communications with Alchemy on the alternative, parallel proposal?
I welcome the fact that no public subsidy will be involved, but what will be the position of the Inland Revenue on the substantial tax implications arising from the losses of BMW-Rover and the acquisition of the new enterprises?
Will the Secretary of State also comment on the fact that, although the announcement is unambiguously excellent news, there is still a grave crisis in the car industry? That may be highlighted in a few days by the announced closure of Dagenham. Does he agree with the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress and the Engineering Employers Federation that the crisis is primarily attributable to the high pound, or does he share the view of the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer who said this morning that the high pound is good news for British industry and that we should get used to it?

Mr. Byers: Alchemy made a clear public statement earlier today that its discussions with BMW have terminated as a result of the contracts that have been entered into.
On the relationship between Phoenix, BMW and the Inland Revenue, those matters will be dealt with in the normal way that they would be processed by the Inland Revenue.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the strength of sterling, it is worth noting that, although there are difficulties in some parts of manufacturing as a result of the strength of sterling and the relative weakness of European currencies—it is worth reminding the House that, over the past week, the pound has depreciated in value against the dollar and the Japanese yen—some manufacturers in the car sector are still investing in the United Kingdom and in Vauxhall, Honda and Jaguar. Therefore, there is some good news in the car sector. We know that Ford is reviewing its operations in the whole of Europe, but that has not been motivated by any concerns about the strength of sterling. It has been led by over-production in the car market, which, in the case of Ford, is about 20 to 25 per cent. in Europe.

Mr. Peter Snape: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be unabashed rejoicing among thousands of families in the west midlands at his announcement today? Many Labour Members have watched and listened with concern to the amount of criticism that he personally has had to put up with over the past few months, so will he accept our congratulations on his announcement? Does he not think that it is a great pity that it was not met with greater pleasure by the cynics on the Opposition Benches, some of whom had hoped that Rover would fail to better their own political advantages?

Mr. Byers: There has been an attempt by some Opposition Members to use the issue for narrow party advantage, but I have to say that there are some honourable exceptions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Name them."] I shall not name them because it may do what political careers they have some damage. However, I value the help that they have been able to give. In the taskforce and as constituencies Members of Parliament, they have played a valuable role.
My hon. Friend is right. We now need to reflect on what has happened. We must recognise that, although today's announcement is good news and that people will be celebrating, we should not lose sight of two issues. First, there will be a number of redundancies. When I spoke to John Towers about half an hour ago, he thought that he would be able to keep the number of redundancies to below 1,000, which would be excellent news, given the prospects that we were facing. However, each of the individuals made redundant will face a real crisis and we have to give them help and support.
Secondly, there will be challenges ahead for Phoenix as the new owner of Rover and of Longbridge. We should not underestimate that point. I know that the Phoenix consortium does not underestimate the challenges that it will face, and we look forward to working with it, as we do with other companies, to overcome the difficulties that might lie ahead.

Sir Norman Fowler: I declare an interest as a working member of the Rover taskforce.

I congratulate John Towers and his team on the success of their negotiations, which will be welcomed in the west midlands. I very much wish them well.
Is it not important to stress that recovery has not yet been won and that it will almost certainly require tough decisions by Phoenix along the way? Irrespective of what has happened today, it must remain a vital objective that the industrial base of the west midlands is expanded. That must remain a priority for the region.

Mr. Byers: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive role that he has played as a member of the taskforce. I value his input into its deliberations and recommendations.
The right hon. Gentleman makes the important point that, while there is good news for Longbridge, there will be consequences throughout the west midlands that will not be helpful. We should look for ways of encouraging new investment including inward investment and creating new jobs for the future.
Over the past six weeks I have learned at first hand of the great strengths that exist in the west midlands. There are strengths of character and the skills that are needed for the jobs of the future. I have no doubt that when an inward investor considers the opportunities that the west midlands has to offer, we shall find within a matter of days rather than weeks that announcements will be made by major multinationals that they will locate in the area. That will be the clearest signal to the people of the west midlands that they have something that is valued and that they have players who could go anywhere in the world but are choosing to locate in the area. I shall be doing all that I can in the hours and days ahead to secure such decisions.

Ms Julia Drown: I welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement. As he knows, the future of many of my constituents is dependent on the future of Longbridge. Obviously we are still expecting some redundancies and some scaling down at Longbridge. Can my right hon. Friend assure my constituents that the taskforce, which is mainly designed around the west midlands, will continue to work with workers in my constituency, who are also affected by the decisions, as well as others in the supply chain, to ensure that as many as possible of their highly skilled and valued jobs are retained and their futures secured?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend has been a powerful advocate for the Swindon plant. As at present, BMW is retaining the facility. However, as the plant is dependent on both Longbridge and Solihull, there will be a knock-on effect depending on the outcome of the detailed negotiations with Phoenix and those that are continuing with Ford on the situation at Solihull. Much will depend on the future strategy that the new owners of the two operations decide to develop.
I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that the help that we want to give to the west midlands is the help that we shall provide to facilities and plants in other parts of the country that will be affected by these decisions. It may mean that we shall need to find additional resources to meet demands, but it is something that we are prepared to do. We shall reconfigure our budgets to ensure that the people of Swindon or others in the supply chain elsewhere


are recognised as the innocent victims of what is happening. We shall not leave them; we shall stand with them and overcome the short-term difficulties that they will face.

Mr. John Maples: Can the Secretary of State give the House any information on the future of the Gaydon design and test centre, where several thousand people are employed in south Warwickshire? Does he know how many of the employees will have their jobs safeguarded by the Phoenix bid? Is he in a position to say whether Ford has yet confirmed that as part of its takeover of Land Rover it will take on Gaydon and nearly 2,000 employees? Ford said originally that it would but it then became clear that it was a matter of negotiation. Is the right hon. Gentleman able to clarify any of these points?

Mr. Byers: We have been in discussions with Ford about its proposals for Gaydon. Its discussions with BMW are still continuing. It hopes that they will come to a conclusion within the next two months or so. It is a complicated set of discussions and due diligence is taking place. Ford is working on the proposal, as originally suggested, that it would take over the Gaydon facility and those employees who are linked with Land Rover at Solihull. A number of those employees will then be linked with the Mini, which is to remain at Cowley. That announcement was made by BMW today. Other employees may be engaged by Phoenix.
As far as I am aware, Phoenix has not yet made a statement about its intentions regarding workers at Gaydon who may be linked with any models being developed under the new ownership of Phoenix at the Longbridge plant. Our latest information is that Ford is still discussing with BMW the acquisition of the Gaydon site and the workers who would go with the Land Rover operation.

Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: My right hon. Friend has been fulsome in his tribute to Mr. Towers and his team. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that all of us on the Government Benches agree with him on that. Is he aware that we feel that he has played a critical role in the negotiations? He has been plunged into a crisis not of his making, and has supported an arrangement with Mr. Towers that was subject to attack on many sides, and we should like to congratulate him on that.
The important lesson to be learned—which the Secretary of State has not mentioned—is that his Department will continue to play a critical role in such matters in future. As we look forward to a more settled future after the present crisis, international arrangements and partnerships will have to be agreed so that Rover's future can be more secure. We pay tribute to my right hon. Friend's magnificent achievement, but ask him to give a commitment to ensure that those arrangements can be secured, thus avoiding similar crises in future.

Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words. I assure him that I do not see today as the end of the book—rather, one chapter has come to an end and a new one is beginning. Much work will need to be done. The point that I made about working together to meet the challenges ahead addressed indirectly the sorts of

initiatives and proposals to which my hon. Friend referred. The Department and the Secretary of State will continue to play a role in helping the new owners of Rover in the United Kingdom and internationally. We will do that for the Phoenix consortium, the workers at Longbridge and the wider community in the west midlands.

Mr. Robin Corbett: On behalf of the people of Birmingham and the west midlands, I thank my right hon. Friend for his efforts in bringing Phoenix and BMW together. I also thank him for confirming that the taskforce and its funding will be continued to help casualties of the change in the business.
Will my right hon. Friend join me in encouraging all those who got together to keep Rover on the road to get behind the wheel of a Rover, the better to ensure the future of Longbridge as well as jobs in its supply chain and dealerships?

Mr. Byers: One of the interesting facts to emerge is that sales of Rovers have taken off in the past month, as many people are choosing to buy Rover models. If John Towers and the Phoenix consortium maintain that level of sales, they will have no difficulties in future. I certainly know that John Towers and the Phoenix consortium have thought about their marketing strategy in detail, and I hope that people will consider carefully the attractive models offered by the new owners of Rover.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: The news that the bid is going ahead is extremely welcome and heartening for the 1,500 workers in my constituency employed at Longbridge. However, it has been a time of great anguish and uncertainty for those people, so it is important that the Phoenix bid has a long-term future.
Will the Secretary of State give us further details about his conversations with Mr. Towers today? The flow of events so far suggests that production at Longbridge will be cut by half to between 150,000 and 200,000 cars. Is that consistent with 1,000 job losses and maintaining a work force at Longbridge of about 7,000?
Will the Secretary of State also tell us what car will replace the Rover 25 and Rover 45? Is such a car in the pipeline, or will that depend on an international company coming forward with a new product for Longbridge?

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Sell the BMW.

Mr. Byers: I do not know whether the BMW has been sold yet.
As the new owner of Rover, John Towers is addressing those issues. It is only right and appropriate that, as the new commercial owner of Longbridge, he should make announcements about the number of redundancies and the new models that he wishes to develop at the plant. Today, he said clearly and publicly that Longbridge will develop models such as the Rover 75, which is coming up from Cowley. I know that the Phoenix consortium want to develop the estate version of that car. Proposals have been announced by John Towers and the Phoenix consortium,


but it is appropriate that such announcements are made by the commercial body now responsible for those decisions, not by me as Secretary of State.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State say a little more about Land Rover in my constituency, and about Rover pensioners generally?

Mr. Byers: I welcomed the opportunity of visiting, with the hon. Gentleman, the Land Rover plant in Solihull two or three weeks ago. It was valuable for me to see at first hand the excellent facilities at the plant and the commitment of the work force in difficult circumstances. I know that Ford is committed to the future of Land Rover, and they have exciting plans to develop the Solihull site.
The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of pensions before. We have received assurances about the security of pensions, but I am waiting to receive confirmation in writing so that I can put in writing the response received from BMW and the new owners of Longbridge and Land Rover at Solihull. I shall do that not only for present employees but for pensioners who are concerned about the future of their pension entitlement.

Ms Debra Shipley: I join my colleagues in welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement today, which will come as a great relief to my constituents and to the small businesses located in my constituency that supply Longbridge. I am pleased that he will support those who are made redundant and their families. However, may I ask about the £129 million which, I understand, will remain available to the taskforce? To be obvious about it, how can businesses in my constituency gain access to that money?

Mr. Byers: We have in place a scheme to help companies in the supply chain that face difficulties, and we have made £12 million available already. Given the nature of my hon. Friend's constituency, it is entirely possible that the organisations and employers that she is talking about will regard access to support for the supply chain as a means by which we can be of immediate assistance. If individual companies are feeling the pressure of events, they should get in touch with the taskforce, which is monitoring the situation and ensuring that those who are experiencing difficulties can be routed in the right direction.

Mr. Tony Baldry: The Secretary of State will be aware that, all along the M40 corridor, from Oxford to Birmingham, there are many component manufacturers. When Alchemy was in play, representatives told the Select Committee that, because of the pound's strength, the only way to make the figures work was by sourcing more components from overseas. What assurances has the right hon. Gentleman been given by the Phoenix group that it hopes to continue to source components in the west midlands and the UK, whenever possible?

Mr. Byers: The Phoenix consortium is more likely than any of the alternatives that were on offer to source more components in Britain. Part of its marketing strategy will be that the cars that it makes are British cars, made by a

British-owned company. I think that that will be a strong selling point, which it is good news for component suppliers. I know that the Select Committee took evidence on the subject and that it is a matter of concern, but I believe that the Phoenix option will be far better for suppliers than either Alchemy or closure of the Longbridge site would have been.

Dr. Lynne Jones: I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend on all the efforts that he put in behind the scenes to help bring about today's welcome announcement. I endorse his comments about John Towers and his perseverance in the face of criticism—perhaps those comments apply to my right hon. Friend as well.
However, do the Government accept that the pound is overvalued, that the low value of the euro does not reflect the strength of the European economy, and that that is harming our manufacturing industry? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Government should work with our European partners to do everything possible to bring about a more realistic alignment of those currencies?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out that certain sections of manufacturing are experiencing difficulties as a result of the relative strength of the pound against the European currencies. I happen to believe that the best way in which the European currencies can begin to strengthen is through effective economic reform. A wholehearted embracing of the recommendations of the Lisbon summit would be the best way of ensuring that European economies demonstrate their commitment to economic reform. That would help to strengthen the European currencies, which is where I think that the problem lies, rather than in the strength of sterling, given that, as I said, it has depreciated in value against the American dollar and the Japanese yen over the past few days.

Mrs. Caroline Spelman: The Secretary of State has indicated some rationalisation in the supply chain to Rover for which he might be prepared to make available additional resources. Given his experiences last time, has he clarified that that would be within European Union rules?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady is one of those hon. Members who have played a constructive part as constituency Members of Parliament in what I know have been a difficult few months for many Members and their constituents. She raises an important point. If state aid is involved, it must clearly now receive approval from the EU. However, much of the taskforce's work—certainly with help in the supply chain—does not fall within European state aid rules. Therefore, we can and are already making support available in the supply chain; companies are already receiving financial support. We do not have such a problem with many of the taskforce's proposals. Support for the supply chain is one example of our making decisions that are not within the EU' s remit.

Mr. Dennis Turner: As Chairman of the Catering Committee, I think that we ought to have a really lovely party today to celebrate. We are all very glum on a day on which we have had wonderful news. I assure the Secretary of State that there


will be singing and dancing in the streets of your constituency, Madam Speaker, as well as mine, and throughout the black country and the west midlands.
I thank the Secretary of State for all his work behind the scenes in negotiations. I would also like to say a special word to the Prime Minister, who last week received a deputation from the workers at Rover. He was very courteous and concerned about the plight of Rover. Today, the great cloud is lifting. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) that we should rejoice; today is a lovely day.

Mr. Byers: I thank my hon. Friend and look forward to raising a glass or seven with him this evening.

Dr. Evan Harris: I join the Secretary of State in welcoming the Longbridge solution to the Rover problem. Does he recognise the concerns of my constituents who work for Rover at the Cowley plant in Oxford, where there will not necessarily be dancing in the streets? What reassurance can he give those workers who face being laid off because, under the Phoenix plan, the Rover 75 line will move to Longbridge months before the Mini goes to Cowley? Even though, since Thursday, Oxford is no longer a Labour stronghold, will he still put political energy into the problems at Cowley to ensure the short-term and long-term future of the highly skilled workers at that modern plant?

Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman's final remark ill becomes him. Perhaps when he reflects on it, he will regret having made it.
When I visited the shop stewards and management of Cowley about four weeks ago on returning from a meeting with the BMW management in Munich, I was very clear with them that the issue affected not just Longbridge but all plants in the Rover group that were part of BMW. We have been raising the question of Cowley in discussions with BMW throughout the past few weeks. The hon. Gentleman needs to be aware that although BMW's announcement today said that the 75 line would be moved to Longbridge, it confirmed that the Mini would be made at Cowley.

Mr. Snape: The new one?

Mr. Byers: Yes; BMW has given guarantees about that. However, the hon. Gentleman raises an important point about the gap between the R75 going to Longbridge and the new Mini beginning production at Cowley. Earlier today BMW gave an assurance that although there will be a gap, there will be no redundancies as a result of the decisions that it has taken. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that.

Mr. Ian Pearson: May I add my welcome for today's news and warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend on his active role in brokering a commercial deal that offers a brighter future for the work force at Longbridge? Does he agree that for the future, topline sales are vital for Rover and other British car manufacturers? British jobs depend on British people buying British cars. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to publicise widely the car models that are made in Britain and encourage people to buy British?

Mr. Byers: In a highly competitive market, there must be a product that people want to buy. I know from my

conversations with John Towers that he is mindful of the situation. Good will alone will not make Phoenix successful. It must offer a good-quality product at a price that people are prepared to pay. That is what Phoenix intends to do. Given the hard-headed approach that it is adopting, it stands a great chance of success.

Dr. Tony Wright: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his announcement. It may have been greeted with visible disappointment on the Opposition Benches, but I can assure him that throughout the west midlands it will be greeted with satisfaction and hope. Will he make sure that what he has just said about investment and regeneration connects with the revisions to the assisted areas map that are under consideration? Many west midlands constituencies are being severely affected by the revision of that map—for example, four out of five wards in my constituency have been dropped from the original proposal. If we are serious about west midlands regeneration, will my right hon. Friend make sure that the statement on assisted areas connects with his statement today?

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend will be aware that we have just concluded the consultation period on the revised map, and we are now considering our response to that. I have no doubt that the situation in the west midlands will be one of the issues on which we need to reflect and which will inform our response to the consultation exercise.

Mr. Ken Purchase: I of course add my welcome to the many others that have been given in the House. There is a long journey ahead. We should pause and recognise that the role played by the trade unions during the long negotiations has been crucial. Their patience, understanding and perception of the problems has been exceptional. I know that during the coming months and years, the trade unions and their working members will work closely with the management to ensure that on competition, unit costs and the general production of a superb range of cars they will work together. We should recognise that working together is always better than working alone.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right to point out the difficulties that still lie ahead. There is no getting away from that. We can celebrate today, but we should not lose sight of the fact that difficult decisions will have to be taken in the period ahead. My hon. Friend is also right to point out the valuable role—and, if I may add my own comment, the positive and constructive role—that the trade unions played in the exercise that we have been through over the past six weeks or so. They have been a force for good in what has happened, and we should not lose sight of that. They will play an increasingly important role in the period ahead. As my hon. Friend says, if Phoenix is to be the success that we all hope that it will be, people will have to work together with a real sense of partnership. That is the best way of overcoming any difficulties that may lie ahead.

Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, the whole country breathes a sigh of relief today. I do not believe that there is a constituency that would not have been touched if Rover had been allowed to close. Whether through the dealerships or the component manufacturers,


we will all benefit from the good news. Thanks ought to go to John Towers and to the trade unions, but questions must be asked. What will happen to the Rover 30? Will that come to Longbridge? Will an export market in America be opened up for the MG sports cars? Increased sales in the American market will give encouragement to the workers at Rover and to the component manufacturers.

Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend raised the issue of the R30 with the head of Rover UK during a Select Committee meeting and received an answer that was less than satisfactory. We should continue to argue for the development of the R30 in the UK. It is a UK idea and its development here would be a compliment to our manufacturing base and car industry.
My hon. Friend's question also raises an important point about access to the American market for the MG and Land Rover, which has perhaps not been marketed as well as it could have been. I have no doubt that the new owners—Ford in the case of Land Rover, Phoenix in the case of the MG—will consider export opportunities, especially to the United States.

Point of Order

Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter about which I have given you prior notice. It is alleged that the Deputy Prime Minister has a flat in Clapham at a beneficial rate from a transport union. That would be contrary to paragraph 113 of the ministerial code of conduct. A flat might constitute a registrable interest. The ministerial code of conduct is neither your responsibility, Madam Speaker, nor that of the House. It is the Prime Minister's responsibility. He has referred a complaint on the matter to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Every Member is bound by the rules of the House, especially the advocacy rule. The report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges on "Advocacy and Declaration" states:
Members may not initiate any parliamentary proceeding which relates specifically and directly to the affairs and interests of a body in which they have a declarable interest.
Today, we are discussing the Transport Bill, which the Deputy Prime Minister introduced. We shall discuss amendments that he tabled. Other hon. Members and I have complained to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. I was initially told to expect a report before Easter, but the Committee has yet to report.
If the Deputy Prime Minister's flat is registrable, is he in breach of the House's rules, and are our proceedings on the Transport Bill therefore out of order? I understand that you may be unable to rule on the matter, Madam Speaker. If the rules of the House have been broken, to whom may we turn?

Madam Speaker: I have a feeling that that is less a point of order and more a point of political argument. However, I shall try to give the hon. Gentleman guidance on the matter. Today's proceedings are perfectly in order. I am not sure whether the Deputy Prime Minister will take part in them—I hope that he will—but he is welcome to do that and it is in order for him to do so.
In so far as the hon. Gentleman's point relates to the Deputy Prime Minister's responsibilities as a Minister of the Crown, any complaint or allegation should be made to the Prime Minister. As the hon. Gentleman said, that is not a matter for me. If he wants to make complaints or allegations against the Deputy Prime Minister as an individual Member of Parliament, he should make them to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. Every hon. Member knows those procedures. I hope that I have explained them for the last time.

New Member

The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: Sandra Julia Gidley, for Romsey.

Ethical Trading

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require retailers to apply the same standards when purchasing from other countries as they apply when purchasing within the United Kingdom.
As you know, Madam Speaker, I am the Member of Parliament for Faversham and Mid-Kent. You may not know that my constituency is alleged to contain the largest acreage of top fruit in the United Kingdom. However, given the speed with which fruit farmers are having to grub up their orchards, I wonder how long that privilege will remain.
The House knows that the farming community is going through an extremely bad time. Small farmers are leaving the business and their way of life at ever-increasing speed and there seems to be no light at the end of the tunnel. A strongly held belief in the farming and horticultural communities is that they are frequently prevented from selling their produce to big retailers in this country because the standards that those retailers impose are relaxed for imports. It is hard to establish whether that strongly held belief is wholly or partly true because the big retailers are cagey about how much information they provide. However, it is clear that there is a good case for ensuring that it is no longer reasonable to hold such a belief so strongly.
My simple Bill proposes that it should be illegal for a major food company to import any food product if it can be shown that it has refused to purchase from a British supplier for reasons of standards and that the standard of the food that has been imported is the same or lower than that which it has refused to buy in Britain. That would make it absolutely clear that a level playing exists across the world and ensure that the big retailers, which have such a stranglehold on the market, behave as ethically as they claim.
One of the origins of my Bill was a session that the parliamentary fruit group held with a representative of one of the large supermarkets. He explained persuasively and at great length how ethically his company behaved and how it used its market power to drive up the standards of their suppliers around the world. However, when he was asked whether it would relax those standards if a product ran short and import it from wherever it could be found, he said, "Ah, that is nothing to do with the company; that is to do with the Government."
My Bill aims to provide the Government with the opportunity, within the law, to allow those retailers to feel secure in the knowledge that they can behave as ethically as they claim to do. That is important, because if we are serious about protecting our children from pesticide residues, or if our consumers are anxious about the

standards under which pigs or other livestock are reared, it is essential that they should be as well protected from pesticide residues from Spain or the Caribbean as they are from pesticide residues at home. If the retailers are behaving as well as they claim to be, they can have no objection to my Bill, because it merely reinforces the position as it is alleged to be; but if they are not behaving in that way, the Bill will give much-needed protection to British farmers.
Every Member of Parliament has an interest in ensuring that the share of British food sold by British farmers increases. Many of the difficulties of British farming would diminish greatly if we could obtain a larger share of the domestic market, and the cry for increased subsidy would also diminish greatly if we were obtaining a larger share of our home-grown market.
Many of the difficulties of the farming community are caused by the fact that a large number of big purchasers employ young men and women whose arrogance—backed by the power of their companies—is so great that long-established farmers find it difficult to believe what they are told. They often believe that what is being imported is of a lower standard, to their great detriment.
Let me give an example that featured in the debate on labelling initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien). Chickens from Thailand, having entered this country and been processed in some minor way, are often regarded as British, although as far as anyone can see they contain no British component. They have been shown to contain rather more unwelcome chemicals, or hormones, than they should contain according to British standards. It is that kind of story, multiplied a hundred times, that is causing so much distress in the farming community.
I consider the current state of affairs to be entirely wrong. I believe that my simple little Bill would end it, and I hope very much that the House will allow me to bring it in.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Rowe, Mr. James Gray and Mr. David Prior.

ETHICAL TRADING

Mr. Andrew Rowe accordingly presented a Bill to require retailers to apply the same standards when purchasing from other countries as they apply when purchasing within the United Kingdom: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 122].

TRANSPORT BILL [WAYS AND MEANS] (No. 2)

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Transport Bill, it is expedient to authorise the imposition of charges to corporation tax by provisions relating to transfers connected with railways.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Transport Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the following provisions shall apply to remaining proceedings on the Transport Bill:—

Timetable

1. Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading shall be completed in two allotted days.

2.—(1) Subject to the Speaker's power to select the amendments, New Clauses or New Schedules to be proposed, proceedings on Consideration shall be taken in the following Order; New Clauses 35, 36, 37, 26, 5 and 27; other New Clauses relating to Part I; amendments relating to Part I; New Clauses 6 and 14; other New Clauses relating to Part II; amendments relating to Part II; New Clauses 28 and 30; other New Clauses relating to Part III; amendments relating to Part III; amendments 420 and 412; New Clauses relating to Part IV; other amendments relating to Part IV; amendments relating to Clauses 227 to 229 and Schedule 26; New Clause 3; Remaining New Clauses; New Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 230 to 237 and Schedule 27.

(2) Each part of proceedings on Consideration shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the case of that part in the following Table.

TABLE


Proceedings
Time for conclusion of proceedings


First allotted day


New Clauses 35, 36, 37 and 26.
Four hours after commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order


New Clauses 5 and 27; other New Clauses relating to Part I; amendments relating to Part I.
Five and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.


New Clause 6
Six and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order


New Clause 14; other New Clauses relating to Part II; amendments up to the end of Clause 123.
Seven and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.


Remaining Amendments to Part II.
Eight hours after commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.


Second allotted day


New Clause 28.
One and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the Bill.


New Clause 30; other New Clauses relating to Part III; amendments relating to Part III;
Three hours after commencement of proceedings on the Bill.


Amendment 420
Four hours after commencement of proceedings on the Bill.


Amendment 412; New Clauses relating to Part IV; other amendments relating to Part IV; amendments relating to Clauses 227 to 229 and Schedule 26.
Five hours after commencement of proceedings on the Bill.


New Clause 3; Remaining New Clauses; New Schedules; amendments relating to Clauses 230 to 237 and Schedule 27.
Five and a half hours after commencement of proceedings on the Bill.

3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Bill on the second allotted day.

Questions to be put

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with the preceding provisions the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

(2) On a Motion for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(3) If two or more Questions would otherwise fall to be put under sub-paragraph (1)(c) on amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.

Miscellaneous

5. Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings to which this Order applies.

6.—(1) If at this day's sitting—

(a) a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to 7.00 p.m.; and
(b) proceedings on the Motion for this Order have begun before that time, the Motion for the Adjournment shall stand over until the adjournment of proceedings on the Bill at this day's sitting.

(2) If on the second allotted day a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 24 stands over to 7.00 p.m. or from an earlier day, the Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill.

7. No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken or to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise); and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of any such Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, including the Question on any amendment.

8. No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to the Bill except by a Minister of the Crown; and the Question on any such Motion made by a Minister of the Crown shall be put forthwith.

9. Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to sittings of the House.

10. Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply to the Bill.

Supplemental orders

11. If any Motion is made by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order, proceedings on the Motion shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have commenced; and Standing Order No. 15(1) shall apply to those proceedings.

12. If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended—

(a) at this day's sitting, before the adjournment of proceedings on the Bill; or
(b) on the second allotted day, before the conclusion of proceedings on the Bill, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a Minister of the Crown for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Interpretation

13. In this Order—
allotted day" means this day and any day on which the Bill is put down on the main business as first Government Order of the Day; and
the Bill" means the Transport Bill.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. Eric Forth: All guillotines are an affront. This is as bad as most, and worse than many.
Guillotines, surely, represent a failure of the parliamentary process. They imply that the House has neither the disposition nor the time to deal properly with the matters at hand. They also render impossible the main function of the House, which is to scrutinise legislation properly; and they deny Back Benchers, in particular, an opportunity to give their attention to it. I suspect that they also imply the existence of an excess of legislation. The fact that a guillotine needs to be introduced at any stage of the parliamentary Session suggests that the Government are putting too much legislation before the House, and the House feels that it is not being given proper time to deal with it.
That applies particularly in the case of this Bill, which by any measure is large and important. One would have thought that the House would want to give a proper amount of time to its consideration—especially at this stage, when we are faced with a substantial number of amendments. I look in particular at the first grouping that is proposed in the timetable motion. Not only are there at least 40 distinct items to be considered in the four hours to be allocated, but they range across very different subjects.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Four hours are not allocated to that group of amendments. Under Standing Orders, the first three hours are allocated to this debate. If we had three hours on the debate and a Division at the end, the Government would intend to dispose of all those matters within about 40 minutes.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his correction. I was assuming that, given my customary brevity, the House would not be detained for any great length of time. Depending on what he wishes to say, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that may or may not be the case. My hon. Friend is right. In certain circumstances, there could be as little as three hours or less to consider the 40 items that I have mentioned; the four hours are a maximum.
The items range across different issues such as loans and grants, the disposition of shares, directorships, the parliamentary process itself and the key issue of the nature of the company that is to be set up. All those items are supposed to be properly scrutinised and considered in the House of Commons in a period that could be as little as under an hour and that, at most, will be something short of four hours.
That is bad enough. It is proposed to give the next grouping an hour and a half. I count 90 Government amendments and 20 other amendments. How is the House is supposed to consider them properly? That is less than one minute per item, if one wants to look at it in that way. An hour is allocated to a later grouping: it is proposed to deal with 36 Government amendments and seven others in that time.
I do not want to go into any more detail. The matter explains itself. It is a pathetic admission of failure by the House as a whole, by hon. Members and by those who propose the timetable motion because it suggests that the House of Commons has lost interest in its principal function: the proper scrutiny of legislation. The motion arrogantly implies that we Back Benchers should be prepared to allow the matter to slip through—this enormous Bill, this enormous number of amendments—in one brief sitting today of somewhat short of eight hours and in a sitting tomorrow of six hours. It is pathetic.
That the House of Commons should have come to this makes me feel very sad. I would like to think that it will never happen again, but I am not sure, given the Government's propensity not only to bring excessive numbers of Bills before the House—and to make them excessively long—but to be forced by their incompetence to introduce so many amendments to their Bills. All those factors add up to the fact that we can see what the Government's attitude to the House of Commons and its traditional function is. I deprecate the whole thing.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My regret goes a little further than that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). On the Order Paper, the motion stands in the name of Front-Bench representatives of the principal parties. They have clearly sat down and considered what is the best way of debating the Bill; I take that on trust because no speech has yet been made to justify why the mechanism is necessary.
Why are we cutting off the rights of Members of Parliament—the representatives of constituencies—to speak? Why are we reducing on the most important issues the ability of any one of us—it is what we were elected for—to speak on behalf of our constituents and to express anxieties or balanced arguments as to why the measures or clauses are appropriate or inappropriate?
Such motions used to be a matter of great solemnity for the House. They were barely used. The Government have now introduced, I think, 36 principal guillotine motions; in fact, there have been nearly 50 guillotine motions. I know that that might even shock the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. I know how vigorous he was in opposing the decisions of past Conservative Administrations to impose guillotines.
The Secretary of State may think, now that he is in office, that guillotines are right, but when he was not in office, he clearly thought that such motions were wrong. Nevertheless, that seems to be the thought behind the guillotine.
In the House's Standing Orders, three hours are set aside for debate of a guillotine motion. However, even that may be truncated. It is the House's right, by the force of the majority, to ensure that many hon. Members who may wish to speak to these important matters cannot do so. That would be an extraordinary rejection of the very function that we are called here to perform, and of even our name—Parliament.
I take exception to this guillotine motion, which will limit what is perhaps the most important political debate. Perhaps the debate's importance is the reason why the Opposition have been so keen to conduct it in this manner,


raising it to such a prominent position and ensuring that they maximise the Government's discomfiture on it. It is a shortsighted way of considering the matter.
No one doubts that the principle involved in the sell-off of air traffic control is very important. The issue raises in all parties anxieties about the national interest and about who can best guarantee the security of air traffic control. Some people say that the Government can do that best, whereas others say that it can be done best by someone else. Some people ask whether there should be a golden share to ensure that air traffic control cannot be bought by foreign commercial interests and put at ransom.
Every hon. Member knows that all those issues are important. Hon. Members on both sides of the House—but especially Labour Members—are deeply anxious about them. I do not take lightly Labour Members' feelings in voting against the principle proposed by the Government. Many of them will wish to speak in the debate to explain to their constituents why they take a different view, but the motion will deny them the opportunity of doing so.
I have not troubled even to count the number of amendments in the first group, which—if the guillotine debate were to last three hours, plus a Division—we could have only 40 minutes to debate. If we had only 40 minutes, the Secretary of State would have barely enough time to mangle his first sentence. If the process were to continue, the Government would be denying even themselves the ability to justify their case to the House. How can that be right? It is an important argument.
The courtesies have become so trivialised that the Government feel that it is no longer necessary even to explain why a guillotine should be introduced. Even Opposition Front Benchers do not think that it is necessary to justify them.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend not see the connection between the point that he made initially and the point that he is making now? Presumably, the reason why our Front Benchers do not think that it is necessary to explain the motion to the House is that they believe that a cosy and consensual arrangement made in private is sufficient, and that the House should simply accept whatever our betters on the Front Benches agree. Does he agree that that is a likely reason for the lack of courtesy from Front Benchers?

Mr. Shepherd: Before I answer that, I should first point out that Liberal Democrat Front Benchers have also signed the guillotine motion and do not think that it is necessary to justify cutting people off from speaking. The cosiness of the arrangement—which, as we all know, has been debated in the Modernisation Committee—means that Back Benchers, who comprise the overwhelming majority of the House, march to drums that deny them the opportunity to speak. It is an extraordinary arrangement.

Dr. Desmond Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by debating the programme motion at length, he and other Opposition Members are contributing towards the restriction of

debate in the House? If he wants to debate the substantive issue, it would be best to allow the programme motion to be put to a Division as soon as possible.

Mr. Shepherd: I feel that the hon. Gentleman has not even read the motion before the House, and his point is unwise. He should take the matter up with his own party managers, and ask whether a debate on a substantive matter should be curtailed to 40 minutes because some obstreperous Back Bencher has argued against the motion.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Both Front-Bench teams have been accused of discourtesy. My hon. Friend will know that I have enormous sympathy for what he is saying, but we were left with a choice between two evils—a programme motion or a guillotine. I venture to suggest that, in this case, a programme motion is preferable to a guillotine, as we can at least guarantee that matters of concern to this House can be discussed. Otherwise, an endless stream of mundane Government amendments could use up the time before the guillotine falls. That is why we have done this. I do not expect my hon. Friend's forgiveness, but I crave his understanding.

Mr. Shepherd: There is no difference between a guillotine and a programme motion, other than the fact that, under a timetable motion, my hon. Friend is saying that he can more judiciously allocate the time allowed for debate. However, that does not work either, as we have one and a half hours to discuss some groupings of amendments.
One must consider the extraordinary nature of the Bill, which weighs a great deal and covers many pages. The amendments are colossal. The House must pause; that is all I am asking. We are giving so little time to important issues, and we are reducing debate so that there is an almost mechanical passage of legislation. There can be almost no thought or reflection on the individual amendments, which are blocked, grouped and marched on.
Previously, we had a guillotine on Lords amendments when the Government used their judgment as to the appropriate time for the guillotine. Out of 11 groupings of amendments upon which Madam Speaker had graciously decided, only four were debated. We do not even debate substantial pieces of legislation now, and that is what angers me. This House is viewed with great contempt because we just seem to be two marching armies. It is as if these are matters for party alone. However, each one of us represents a constituency. By voting to deny ourselves the right to speak on some of these important amendments, we are denying the very justification for our existence in this House.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I intended no offence by not intervening when the motion was moved, because the three main parties had agreed. However, this is a matter for the House. The three Front-Bench teams can get together and make agreements, but the House can agree or reject them. That is what we face.
One distinctive difference between a guillotine and this kind of co-operation on the allocation of time is that one party is not seeking to impose on the other. There is an


agreement—as the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said—to seek a better way to deal with the important issues.
I have been in this place for 30 years and I am bound to say that I have heard these arguments from both sides. I am not unsympathetic to the points that have been made, as these are essential democratic issues. It is hoped that many of these issues can be debated in Committee where considerable time is given, but that does not deny the House the right to debate them.
We have faced such problems before—for example, during debates on the Maastricht treaty. I do not know what the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) thought about that, or whether he voted against the timetable motion. I presume that he did not, as he was a member of the Government.
I have been on both sides of the Chamber dealing with the matter, and we have to find agreements in dealing with legislation. The fundamental point is being looked at by a Committee of this House which will report back to us. This is an agreed timetable, as is made clear in the motion which is signed by the three parties involved in the process. It suggests a sensible and logical consideration of the Bill, and it gives an opportunity for the Opposition to make clear those parts of the Bill that they want to discuss. I can recall several occasions when we discussed all sorts of stupid Government amendments and did not get to the serious issues until 2 or 3 am. We want to discuss the serious issues at a time when the public may be most interested to hear those discussions.
We sought to co-operate with the other parties to devise the right timetable. With all its faults and limitations, the timetable before us represents the best way forward. It also avoids the duplication of debate and makes for speedier consideration.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that many of us will feel that it is important to vote on more than one of the amendments and new clauses in the first group?

Mr. Prescott: We are trying to find as much time as we can, and I am trying to hurry my contribution, because the longer I am at the Dispatch Box, the more I shorten the period for discussion. That is one reason why I hung back, hoping that we would not have this debate, but the House has the decision in these matters. We have provided a timetable that I believe represents the best way of dealing with the Bill, and I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. David Wilshire: I am very conscious that we are eating into debating time for substantive matters, but I want to make one point on behalf of my constituents, bearing in mind that the most recent crash at Heathrow took place in my constituency.
My experience of 13 years in the House has taught me that when we have a programme motion or a guillotine and there are a given number of hours and many people want to speak, it is the matters of principle and philosophy, and the general matters of national concern, that get debated, while the local concerns of my constituents—and, in the context of Heathrow, probably those of the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen)—get squeezed out. With the memory of what has happened in Spelthorne, my constituents would want me to object, very briefly, to that squeezing out of their interests by other people's debates.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Transport Bill

1ST ALLOTTED DAY

As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.

New Clause 35

TRANSFER TO BE TO COMPANY OWNED BY CROWN

'.—(1) Any property, rights or liabilities shall only be transferred under a transfer scheme to a company which—

(a) has been formed and registered under the Companies Act 1985 or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986; and
(b) is wholly owned by the Crown.

(2) For the purposes of this Part a company shall only be regarded as wholly owned by the Crown if each of the issued shares of the company is held by—

(a) the Treasury,
(b) the Secretary of State, or
(c) the nominee of a person falling within paragraph (a) or (b).

(3) A company to which any property, rights or liabilities have been transferred under a transfer scheme shall not issue any shares or share rights unless such shares or share rights are issued to the Treasury, the Secretary of State or a nominee of either of them.

(4) Subject to subsection (5), neither the Treasury, the Secretary of State nor a nominee of either of them shall dispose of any shares or share rights in a company to which any property, rights or liabilities have been transferred under a transfer scheme.

(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to any disposal by the Treasury, the Secretary of State or a nominee or either of them to any other such person.'.—[Mrs. Dunwoody.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 36—Transfer to be to not for profit company—
'.—(1) Any property, rights or liabilities shall only be transferred under a transfer scheme to a not for profit company.
(2) The transfer of property, rights or liabilities under a transfer scheme may be by such means, including sale or lease, and on such terms as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine.
(3) A transfer scheme shall not come into force unless a draft of the scheme has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(4) A not for profit company to which any property, rights or liabilities have been transferred under a transfer scheme shall not—

(a) issue any shares or share rights; or
(b) pay any dividend or profits to its members.
(5) For purposes of this Part, "not for profit company" means a company—

(a) which has been formed and registered as a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act 1985 or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986; and
(b) the membership of which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State includes those who are representative of providers, employees and users of aviation, air travel, air navigation and related services.'.

New clause 37—Parliamentary approval of transfer scheme—
'.—(1) A transfer scheme made by the CAA or the Secretary of State shall not come into force unless it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament passed on a motion moved by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.
(2) No such motion shall be moved by or on behalf of the Secretary of State unless at least seven days before the date on which the motion is to be debated by either House of Parliament he has caused a report to be laid before both Houses which—

(a) sets out the progress which has been made in respect of any project for the development of facilities connected with national air traffic services which was commissioned by the transferor before the date on which this Act received Royal Assent; and
(b) confirms that the Treasury have given their consent to the proposed transfer.'.
New clause 26—Disposal of shareholding in designated company—
'(1) The Secretary of State shall procure the disposal of at least 51 per cent. of the shares in the designated company referred to in section 49 by way of an offer to the public of such shares and shall secure acceptance for an application for admission to the Official List (within the meaning of Part IV of the Financial Services Act 1986) in respect of such shares.
(2) The terms on which such shares are offered to the public, as to price and otherwise, shall be such as the Secretary of State considers appropriate for the purposes of—

(a) securing the best price reasonably obtainable for those shares;
(b) securing widespread ownership of such shares by individual members of the public as well as institutions.
(3) Any transfer or issue of a share or shares pursuant to such offer or any subsequent transfer or issue of a share or shares in the company in question shall have no legal effect (and in particular the transferee or allottee of such share or shares shall not be registered as a member of the company or exercise any rights in respect of such share or shares) if such transfer or issue would result in the legal or beneficial ownership of a majority of shares carrying voting rights in, or control of, the company passing to a person who is not a British citizen.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)—

(a) a company shall be deemed to be controlled by a person or persons who singly or together have the right to appoint or remove a majority of the company's board of directors holding a majority of the voting rights at meetings of the board on all, or substantially all, matters or if it is deemed to be controlled for the purposes of section 840 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;
(b) a company shall be deemed to be controlled by a person if it is controlled by a company or companies controlled by such a person.
(5) The Secretary of State shall give to any such company as is referred to in section 48(1) above whatever directions may be necessary for implementing the provisions of this section.
(6) The Secretary of State shall only take action under this section or section 49 or exercise any power in respect of the transfer or issue of shares in such company as referred to in section 48(1) if he has first obtained the agreement by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.'.
Amendment No. 421, in clause 40, page 26, line 5, leave out from "which" to end of line 24 and insert—
'contains provisions for the transfer of—

(a) any of the CAA's property, rights or liabilities or of all or part of its undertaking; or
(b) the property, rights or liabilities of a company (the transferor) which is wholly owned by the CAA or all or part of the transferor's undertaking;
to a company which is wholly owned by the Crown.'.


Amendment No. 438, in clause 42, page 27, line 30, leave out from "unless" to end of line 31 and insert—
'a draft of the scheme has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament in accordance with section [Transfer to be to not for profit company].'
Amendment No. 452, in page 27, line 32, after "that", insert—
'and to section [Parliamentary approval of transfer scheme].'.
Amendment No. 439, in page 27, line 33, leave out from "force" to end of line 37.
Amendment No. 440, in page 27, line 40, at beginning insert—
'The Secretary of State may modify a scheme before it is laid in draft before Parliament and'.
Amendment No. 422, in page 27, line 40,, leave out—
'or transferee (other than the Secretary of State)'.
Amendment No. 441, in page 27, line 42, leave out "to approve and modify".
Amendment No. 453, in clause 43, page 28, line 12, at beginning insert—
'Subject to section [Parliamentary approval of transfer schemes],'.
Amendment No. 442, in page 28, line 12, after "section", insert—
'shall not come into force unless a draft of the scheme has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament in accordance with section [Transfer to be to not for profit company] but, subject to that requirement,'.
Amendment No. 423, in clause 45, page 29, line 25, leave out from "scheme" to end of line 34.
Amendment No. 424, in clause 46, page 30, leave out lines 25 to 27.
Amendment No. 425, in page 31, line 1, leave out Clauses 47 to 49.
Amendment No. 454, in clause 49, page 32, line 9, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Crown does not dispose of any of the shares it holds in the designated company unless he is satisfied that a scheme is in place to ensure the completion of any project which—

(a) concerns the development of major facilities connected with air traffic services, and
(b) was commissioned before the coming into force of this section by the CAA or a company wholly owned by the CAA.'.
Amendment No. 397, in page 32, line 16, leave out subsection (4).
Amendment No. 455, in page 32, line 33, after "subsection", insert "(2A),".
Amendment No. 456, in page 32, line 35, after "subsection", insert "(2A),".
Amendment No. 396, in page 32, line 37, leave out subsection (9).
Amendment No. 426, in clause 50, page 32, line 39, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
'(1) The Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may make loans of such amounts as he thinks fit to a company which is wholly owned by the Crown and to which any property rights or liabilities are transferred under a transfer scheme.'

Amendment No. 444, in page 32, line 39, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
'(1) The Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may make loans of such amounts as he thinks fit to a not for profit company to which any property rights or liabilities are transferred under a transfer scheme.'.
Amendment No. 427, in clause 51, page 33, line 29, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
'(1) The Secretary of State or the Treasury, may guarantee the discharge of any financial obligation of a company (the transferee) which is wholly owned by the Crown and to which any property rights are transferred under a transfer scheme.'.
Amendment No. 445, in page 33, line 29, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
'(1) The Secretary of State or the Treasury may guarantee the discharge of any financial obligation of a not for profit company to which any property rights or liabilities are transferred under a transfer scheme.'.
Amendment No. 428, in page 33, line 43, leave out subsections (6).
Amendment No. 429, in clause 52, page 34, line 21, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
'(1) The Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may make grants towards the expenditure of a company which is wholly owned by the Crown and to which any property rights or liabilities are transferred under a transfer scheme.'.
Amendment No. 446, in page 34, line 21, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
'(1) The Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may make grants towards the expenditure of a not for profit company to which any property rights or liabilities are transferred under a transfer scheme.'.
Amendment No. 430, in page 34, line 37, leave out subsection (6).
Amendment No. 431, in page 34, line 40, leave out Clause 53.
Amendment No. 447, in page 35, line 27, leave out Clause 54.
Amendment No. 432, in clause 54, page 35, line 27, leave out subsections (1) to (3) and insert—
'(1) For the purposes of the provisions of the Companies Act 1985 listed in subsection (2) none of the persons listed in subsection (5) is to be regarded as a shadow director of a company which is wholly owned by the Crown and to which any property. rights or liabilities are transferred under a transfer scheme.'.
Amendment No. 433, in page 36, line 8, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(1) For the purposes of the provisions of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 listed in subsection (4) none of the persons listed in subsection (5) is to be regarded as a shadow direction of a company which is wholly owned by the Crown and to which any property, rights or liabilities are transferred under a transfer scheme.'.
Amendment No. 434, in page 36, line 27, leave out subsections (8) to (11).
Amendment No. 435, in clause 60, page 40, line 23, leave out "47, 48" and insert—
'[Transfer to be to company owned by Crown]'.
Amendment No. 448, in page 40, line 23, leave out "47, 48 or".
Amendment No. 436, in page 40, line 28, leave out "47" and insert—
'[Transfer to be to company owned by Crown]'.


Amendment No. 449, in page 40, line 28, leave out "47 or".
Amendment No. 437, in page 40, line 30, leave out lines 30 and 31.
Amendment No. 450, in clause 63, page 41, line 5, at end insert—
'(dd) not for profit company'.
Amendment No. 451, in page 41, line 13, at end insert—
'(2A) "Not for profit company" has the meaning given in section [Transfer to be to not for profit company].'.

Mrs. Dunwoody: It is important to say at the outset that I have put my name to nearly all the new clauses and amendments, and I hope that the House will be able to decide on the implications of the various suggestions that have been made. I have made it clear that, personally, I do not approve of timetables. The decision about the management of National Air Traffic Services is so important and fundamental that I hope that we will have time to put all the vital points.
The new clause suggests one way in which the electorate as a whole can be absolutely certain that the most fundamental of our rights—the right to know that air safety is in the hands of those who understand and control it—is fully taken account of in legislation.
The Transport Sub-Committee appears to have become the villain of many of our debates. When it discussed this subject, which it did not once but on three separate occasions, it took account of the fact that there were several factors that made it clear that we could not continue with National Air Traffic Services in its current form. There was a need to change, but we thought that the suggestion that NATS should go out to the public market and find money should be examined in the context of its reorganisation.
After all, what does NATS do? It is a fully integrated service, not only providing flight information and weather services but fundamentally controlling the movement of aircraft in the airspace over the United Kingdom, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence. Given that aircraft use is increasing at a rate of between 5 and 6 per cent. a year and a growing number of people are using increasingly congested air space, if we allow any slippage in the high standard of safety that we enjoy, we shall contribute to a potentially difficult situation.
The Select Committee felt that NATS should have the right to raise the money that was essential for its development and that it could best do that either as a publicly owned corporation or in the other ways that we suggested in our report. We did not feel that there was any suggestion that NATS was not capable of providing high-quality services. Not only are air traffic controllers highly trained and working under enormous pressure, but they are men and women of great expertise and they do not provide a service based on the interests of the shareholders of a particular company; their job is performed wholly on the basis of safety and they are responsible to the entire United Kingdom for the maintenance of high standards.
Having looked at various ways in which other countries across the world have reorganised their air traffic services, the Select Committee felt that the best way to ensure that

those high levels of safety were maintained was to keep NATS either as a non-profit making company or, better still, as a publicly owned corporation. That has been made very clear.
It is not true that NATS is not able to act as an adviser or take consultancy work from other air traffic services elsewhere in the world. I received a written answer today which makes it clear that it is already doing precisely that. It is not true that, under the new system, NATS would be able to continue operating as it does now because of something called the golden share. I am afraid that the history of Government privatisations that relied on golden shares is not that Governments maliciously set out to change the conditions under which sales take place, but that, once a strategic partner is in control of the company, it can change the terms and conditions and the way in which the company works. Safety should not depend on a fiduciary duty not to the general public but to shareholders of a particular private company.
I recently attended a lecture where the representative of an airline made it clear what that airline's interests were in pursuing the sale of NATS, by saying to the air traffic controllers who were present, "You must remember that many of the decisions that we take have a direct impact on our commercial affairs and it is therefore essential to us that you are much more understanding of, and responsive to, the needs of individual airline companies." That was not said out of any malice aforethought, but it was a clear indication of the problem that a national air traffic services company would face.
It is important for us to understand that, unlike airports, which can open more shops or expand the services that they offer customers, or airlines which can change the way in which they operate or offer cheaper fares, NATS has one basic and vital function—to ensure safety. It exists to maintain the safety of aircraft in the skies and as they enter and leave our airports and to control air traffic from the continent and across the Atlantic. It exists to ensure that, when we get on any aircraft, we are certain that the men and women operating the movement of those aircraft are answerable only to those who maintain high safety standards and not to anyone seeking to make a profit out of their organisation.
I can give many instances of how the Committee looked at the details. I can answer many of the points that have been made. It is vital that the House asks itself why, before the previous election, the Labour party opposed the sale of NATS. Why did we say that our air was not for sale? It was not because it was an easy, cheap, propaganda point to attract voters but because we understood that, unlike almost any other service, this service is vital to the maintenance of safety and control in the skies over the United Kingdom.
I beg right hon. and hon. Members not to make the mistake of thinking that a simple company reorganisation will maintain the same standards in the future that we have had in the past. Whichever of the three new clauses—35, 36 or 37—right hon. and hon. Members vote on tonight, I ask them to remember that they do so on behalf of every person in the country and, above all, that they do so for the right of the citizens of the United Kingdom to be safe for every moment that they are in the sky.

Mr. Don Foster: Many right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and, like her, I will be brief.
The hon. Lady makes it clear that the matter must be decided by the House as a whole. She will recall that, on Second Reading, a number of Labour Members brought forward a reasoned amendment in opposition to the Government's proposals. Unfortunately, at that time, they did not believe it appropriate to move the amendment. It was in fact moved by Conservative Members, and was voted upon—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is some device here which is making a noise. Can it please be silenced as quickly as possible? Madam Speaker has made it absolutely clear that this is quite improper. [Interruption.] I think that I have seen the source of it.

Mr. Foster: Before that brief interruption, I was saying that there was an opportunity to vote on the issue on Second Reading. The opportunity was not taken then, and we have it again today.
What I believe unites Members on both sides of the House is the wish to see changes in the arrangements for National Air Traffic Services. First, I think that everyone agrees that NATS should be separated from the Civil Aviation Authority. Secondly, I suspect that everyone will see that there are benefits to be gained from introducing into the operation of NATS expertise from the private sector, particularly in relation to management. Thirdly, I suspect that we all agree that there is an urgent need to find ways of enabling NATS to gain funds for future investment, preferably without such funds coming within the public sector borrowing requirement.
I believe that the House is united on those three points. The question therefore is: what is the most appropriate way of ensuring that NATS continues to operate as it does at present, as an organisation that has safety as its No. 1 priority? There are a number of ways of moving forward. The Government have proposed a part-privatisation model. The Conservative party has in the past proposed a complete privatisation model. The model that Liberal Democrats believe to be the most appropriate way in which to achieve the three key objectives to which I referred, and of ensuring that safety remains the paramount issue for the future of NATS, is by establishing an independent, publicly owned company. As we argued strongly in Committee, that particular model would enable the separation of NATS, the introduction of private sector expertise and the ability to raise funds, while ensuring that safety remained the key issue.
5 pm
The Government's proposals have attracted criticism from many quarters. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich has rightly referred to the work of the Transport Sub-Committee, which has issued three reports on this issue. On one occasion, the Committee had a majority of Conservative Members; on two occasions, there was a majority of Labour Members but, each time, the Committee came to the view that the most appropriate way forward was certainly not the one proposed by the Government.
The proposals have also been criticised by airline pilots; they should know—perhaps better than anybody else—about the issues. The British Air Line Pilots Association has been implacable in its opposition to

the Government's proposals. The national air traffic controllers, through their union, the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, have consistently and implacably opposed the proposals. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety is clearly opposed. I hope that there will be opposition from a large number of Government Back Benchers. The proposals certainly do not meet the requirements of the Conservatives nor the requirements and desires of the Liberal Democrats.
On a free vote, there would be no chance whatever that the Government's proposals would go ahead. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said that the matter was of such vital importance to the public at large that the whole House must decide on it. I very much hope that the Government will ensure that there is sufficient time to vote on new clauses 35, 36 and 37 and that the vast majority of Members on both sides of the House will vote for each of them.

Dr. Gavin Strang: Like the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), I served on the Standing Committee. We are discussing hugely important issues. As he pointed out, the Liberal Democrat members of the Standing Committee supported a publicly owned corporation as an alternative to the Government's proposal. That is what new clause 35 would provide.
In her usual powerful and persuasive way, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) argued that the new clause would meet some of the Government's concerns that the service should borrow directly in the private sector.
New clauses 35, 36 and 37 contain three separate propositions—I shall say a few words about each. New clause 35 deals with the independently owned public corporation. New clause 36 provides for the setting up of a trust along the lines of NAV Canada. Such a trust would include representatives of the airlines, the users, the customers, the trade unions and all who have an interest in the matter. If an independently owned public corporation is not acceptable to the Government, the trust would offer a way of meeting their objectives.
The third proposition—in new clause 37—is quite different. If the Government are not able to accept either of the other models—although I hope that they will accept one of them—surely, at the very minimum, they would agree that we must not take the privatisation route until the new centre at Swanwick and the new Scottish centre at Prestwick are operational.
Those are the three propositions before the House. If the Government are not able to accept them, it is vital—as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said—that the House is able to vote on each of them. It would be a travesty of democracy if we were not able to vote separately on each provision. I trust that there will be co-operation to do that.
My hon. Friend dealt with the models for an independent publicly owned company. Such a trust would achieve the Government's objectives because it would split NATS from the Civil Aviation Authority, and allow it to borrow in the private sector and—if the Government want this—to invest overseas. It would achieve all those objectives, so I hope that the Government will be able to accept one of the two models proposed.
If one of those models is not accepted, it is vital that, at the very least, the Government do not move towards privatisation before the Swanwick and Prestwick centres


are operational. However, I emphasise that I think that it would be a great mistake to go ahead with the partial privatisation.
As we have been reminded, it was not just anyone but an all-party Select Committee that said that the option in the Bill was the worst of all possible options. Why has no other country in the European Union or the world privatised its air traffic control system? The prime reason, I suggest, is national security. Fortunately, the domestic civil security risk has not been great recently, but the risk of hijacks or bombs on civil planes remains. If the system is publicly owned, there will be better co-operation with the police and the security services than if it were run—this is what the Government intend—by a private commercial company.
The other aspect of national security is the military. The co-operation between National Air Traffic Services and the Royal Air Force is a model for the world. An international crisis could emerge and we might want to take complete control of our airspace. The Government might be clear that that is what they want to do, but control of the operation could remain with a foreign company. That is possible under the Government's proposals and the aims of that company in such a crisis might be different from those of the British Government. No other country in Europe has privatised its air traffic control system because of such national security considerations. To secure maximum co-operation with the security services, the police and the Ministry of Defence, it is best to retain the system in public ownership.
My hon. Friend powerfully made the case for the second model. Privatising the air traffic control system is not like privatising an airline. A privatised airline can provide additional services, improve in-flight catering and do all sorts of things to maximise the return on the capital deployed so as to obtain more private profit. Air traffic control is all about keeping planes apart, but a private company would want a greater return on the capital deployed—Ministers have said that that is the intention—and it would extract profit from the system for private shareholders. The worry is that the only way that it could achieve that is by driving down costs. In time, that could impact on our safety standards, which have been the highest in the world.
The Government have not persuaded the travelling public and many Labour Members and they have not persuaded the pilots or air traffic controllers. The key dialogue in air traffic control is that between the pilot and the air traffic controller, and the Government would make a great mistake if they proceeded with a policy that is opposed by airline pilots.
I urge the Government to reconsider and accept one of the alternative models—the independent publicly owned company or the not-for-profit trust.

Mr. David Chidgey: I shall not detain the House long, but I wish to point out how much I agree with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who moved the new clause, and the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang). I was reminded very much of the previous Parliament in which I had the privilege of being the Liberal Democrats' spokesman on transport and

I sat on the Opposition Benches with Labour Opposition. Members on the Opposition Benches at that time were in total agreement that we should not sell off NATS, so it is strange that this Government now subscribe to the views of the previous Government. I find that rather sad. It is a shame that the Government have not found time to reassure the House by explaining why things have changed since they were in Opposition and since Labour made pledges at its annual conference. I accept that it is entitled to make pledges and that it is a part of politics to do so. However, why have the Government not told the House why things have changed and why it is not possible to maintain their pledges? Why is the organisation for sale when it was not previously? It is disreputable that the Government have not had the confidence to explain to us as a body why we should see the way forward from their point of view.
I have always subscribed to the view that we should bring in the private concepts of an independent publicly operated company. That is a way of introducing the necessary cash flow and revenue. However, we have never seen the need to privatise the system merely to provide more money and to put the operation of National Air Traffic Services and safety at risk.
My final point is constituency based. Some Members may realise that the Euro centre at Swanwick is just over the border of my constituency. I am sure from correspondence that I have had with many of my constituents who work at the centre that they were not expecting to see such a policy. They are genuinely concerned about how they can maintain levels of safety in their work that keep airline operators and airline passengers confident within the proposed regime.
I am not raising party political points. Instead, I am referring to genuine concerns that are felt by people who are highly professional, highly trained and extremely responsible in what they do. I ask the Government to listen carefully to the views of that body of opinion, which has no political axe to grind. It merely wishes to continue to serve the public to the best of its ability.

Ms Sandra Osborne: I support amendment No. 454, which stands in my name. It would have the effect of ensuring that major planned development by National Air Traffic Services must be completed. I have a specific interest because, as most Members are aware, the new Scottish centre, which will secure 700 jobs, is in my constituency. As the issue is of such importance to my constituency, I am prepared to prioritise it over other issues. I have to insist that the Government support my amendment, otherwise I shall be unable to support the Government.
I have spoken about NATS on numerous occasions. I have raised many of the issues of concern that have been brought to me by constituents and by representatives of trade unions and the work force at Atlantic house. Ministers are well aware that the proposed public-private partnership does not meet with the approval of the work force for many of the reasons that I stated on Second Reading, which have been repeated this afternoon.
I shall concentrate my comments on the repeated suggestions, especially over recent weeks, that the new Scottish centre will not come about if the public-private partnership goes ahead. I have questioned Ministers on numerous occasions. My right hon. Friend the


Prime Minister has twice publicly reiterated his commitment to the two-centre strategy. As recently as last week, he said that the strategic partnership agreement would guarantee the construction and the continued operation of the new Scottish centre at Prestwick. That was his reply to my question.
As I stated on Second Reading, the work force at Prestwick does not believe that the centre will go ahead. That is hardly surprising because there has been a chronic lack of investment in NATS for many years. That was underpinned by the failed attempts at full-scale privatisation that were made by the Conservatives. I do not believe that the new Scottish centre would go ahead with full privatisation, and neither does anyone else. The period during which no progress has been made in building the centre has resulted in cynicism among the Prestwick work force.
It was announced in 1993 by the Conservative Government that the project would go ahead on the basis of a private finance initiative, but there is still nothing on the ground. The PFI turned out to be unworkable. It would have cost at least twice the original budget of £200 million. It has had to be abandoned in spite of the best efforts of the Government to make it work, along with NATS officials. As hon. Members have said, since then, various Select Committee reports have been published, and the Government have conducted a consultation on the future structure of NATS. The initial contract was signed during that period and £60 million of public money has been released to fund the first phase of the contract. However, there is still nothing on the ground.
5.15 pm
The first phase will consist of building a software system, some design work and eventually, a little initial building work. It is well known that a strong body of opinion in NATS itself feels that there is not any special need for the Prestwick centre. That, too, stems from the previous Government, who called into question the two-centre strategy and asked for a review, which concluded that the two centres were needed. The Labour Government accepted that when they came into power and have made a strong political commitment to providing the centre in Scotland as a replacement for the present facility at Prestwick.
I repeat this evening what I have already told my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State: that is exactly what the people of Scotland expect from a Labour Government. However, it is also feared that a strategic partner will, at some point in the future, renege on the commitment to the two-centre strategy because of the cost and need for profit. There is also anxiety about future contraction of the number of air traffic control centres in Europe. From the outset, I have said that my priority as a local Member of Parliament is securing the 700 jobs in my constituency. For three years, I have made a robust case for considering the options that are proposed in the new clauses.
However, it is clear that the Government intend to proceed with the public-private partnership for National Air Traffic Services. In the circumstances, I am sure that colleagues will seek further assurances on various aspects of the proposals. Indeed, I know that there have been discussions, especially on safety. When the partnership was first proposed, I made an undertaking to ensure that the views of the work force were heard in government.

No one in government, from the Prime Minister down, can deny that I have made every effort to represent those views.
At this stage, I wish to ensure that the new Scottish centre is secure now and in future by asking the Government to go a stage beyond guaranteeing the two-centre strategy in the strategic agreement. I hope that Ministers are minded to accept my amendment, which would entrench the new Scottish centre in primary legislation and enable me to do what my predecessor, Phil Gallie, totally failed to do: secure 700 highly skilled jobs at Prestwick and £25 million for the Ayrshire economy.

Dr. Desmond Turner: First, I want to reinforce what several hon. Members have said to the Secretary of State: no one questions the need to move NATS forward. The Government's agenda on creating investment, levering in private finance and updating the system is accepted without question. It is simply a matter of how we set about doing that.
In opposition, Labour Members rightly poured scorn on framework legislation introduced by Tory Governments that did not say what it would really do. Similarly, it is a source of regret that the Bill does not say what it will do, although we all know. Hence new clause 37, which would have the virtue of requiring proposals for NATS to be brought to Parliament for a vote by both Houses before any transfer could take place. That practice is the backbone of democracy.
Why are so many Members of Parliament objecting to the public-private partnership? Those objections are not restricted to Labour Members, but are reflected in the views of many Opposition Members.
Basically, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) said, the objections boil down to safety, safety and safety again. NATS's whole reason for existence is to promote safety, and so far, nothing has been allowed to stand in the way of that, the result of which has been the development of a safety culture in NATS of which we can all be proud. It is the fact that the men and women working in NATS want it to be safe that makes it safe.
The Government have said that safety will be kept in public hands through the separation of regulation, but I have to tell the Secretary of State that that does not mean much—first, because regulation has effectively been made separate already, and taking NATS out of the CAA merely formalises that arrangement; and, secondly, because, as we all know from recent rail tragedies, the fact that safety regulation exists does not guarantee safety. Nothing can truly guarantee safety, but we can try to get as close as possible to guaranteed safety; whether it is achieved depends on whether the overriding culture of the organisation is the promotion of safety.

Mr. Mark Todd: My constituency borders East Midlands airport; indeed, my home lies under the flight path. At that airport, air traffic control is handled entirely by the private sector—by the owners of the airport, which is a large and growing international airport. Should I be concerned?

Dr. Turner: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that important and valid point, but it does not undermine the case against the PPP. East Midlands is a relatively


small airport that has relatively little traffic movement compared with major airports such as Heathrow and Gatwick. NATS controls more than 70 per cent. of passenger movements by air in this country. It also controls all en-route cover. Finally and most importantly, NATS sets the standard that private air traffic control operators at less major airports have to follow. I am saying, not that my hon. Friend's constituents should feel unsafe, but that they might not feel as safe if NATS were privatised. Therefore, my hon. Friend's point does not undermine my argument.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Has my hon. Friend seen a letter in The Guardian from Paul Noon, the general secretary of the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, in which he points out that 87 per cent. of passengers at all UK airports are handled by NATS?

Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention—I had not seen the letter, which underscores my argument.
At issue is not whether NATS should be moved forward, but the means by which we finance its development and the mode of governance we establish. We are all happy to lever in private finance and get NATS out of the public sector borrowing requirement, so that public funds can be used for other priorities. That is fine; no one in the House cavils at that for one moment. However, there are plenty of alternative ways of skinning this cat, and two of them are before the House in the form of new clauses 35 and 36.
Either of those proposals will suit the situation. They have their different merits; we know, for a start, that the trust model, as exemplified by NAV Canada, works. It has been in operation for several years, it has been highly successful, it has raised safety standards, and the costs of air traffic control in Canada are falling. As far as anyone can tell, it is totally successful. Such a model would achieve all the things that the Secretary of State wants, and would not bring the profit motive into conflict with safety.
It has been said in this argument that people who are unhappy with the public-private partnership are unhappy for ideological reasons. I assure the Secretary of State that that is not so. I am perfectly happy with PPPs. One does not hear a great deal of complaint about such partnerships for hospitals, because people want their hospitals. However, we do not ask the PPP building consortium for hospitals to supply specialist medical services—do we?—because that is obviously not appropriate.
Happily, my constituency is benefiting from PPPs for schools. That is great; I am very glad—it is the only way to get those schools that quickly. However, nobody is asking the building consortium to do the teaching—are they? A PPP is proposed for the tube, but operation of the tube, as the Secretary of State clearly said, is to remain in public hands. The Secretary of State was most emphatic about that, and safety was one of the considerations. If that argument is good enough for the tube, if safety is critical to the tube, it is doubly critical for the much more complex matter of air traffic control.
It has been argued that because airlines are private, and fairly safe, the Government's proposal must be all right. Of course, if one does not think that an airline is safe, one

does not have to fly with it. One flies with an airline that has a good safety record. One can choose one's airline, but one cannot choose one's air traffic control service. That is the difference.
I end by making a plea to the Secretary of State. The conflict between the profit motive and the safety culture, which is inevitable in the structure that he is proposing, need not arise. Does he understand that, although many Labour Members will support the amendments and new clauses—effectively voting against the Government—most of us are extremely loyal Government Back Benchers, and it is a matter of great pain to us to find ourselves forced into so doing? Personally, I am satisfied that the PPP, as set forth, involves a very serious possibility of endangering lives in future. My conscience will not permit me to ignore that. I fancy that the same is true of many hon. Members.

Mr. David Wilshire: I had not intended to speak until I heard the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) express my fears. The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) began the debate by making clear what I regard to be the fundamental issue at stake: safety.
During the debate on the timetable motion, I reminded hon. Members who were present that the most recent crash at Heathrow was in my constituency. Because of that, and because of the seriousness of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Kemptown, I have not the slightest wish to play party politics in the debate. I believe that I speak on behalf not only of all 23,000 of my constituents who voted for me at the election, but of all 19,000 who voted for the Labour party, and all 6,000 who voted Liberal Democrat. I am convinced that we all see the matter in the same way.
I shall not make a speech. I merely ask the Secretary of State one clear, simple question, which I shall be eternally grateful if he will answer in an equally simple and straightforward way, so that all my constituents can be clear about what the Government are proposing. The question is this: will the Secretary of State's proposals make things safer for my constituents? That is all they want to know. All the other arguments are peripheral to the question whether they will be safer if the Secretary of State's wishes prevail tonight. I should be grateful if he would give me a clear answer when he responds.

Mr. Todd: I shall be brief. My difficulty in the debate has been the focus on safety and the direct relationship of that argument to the question whether the private sector controls any part of the service. As my intervention indicated, that is partly based on my local experience.
I should declare that my brother-in-law is an air traffic controller who works for the private sector. I have spoken to him about his role and he has given his opinions, which have had little bearing on mine. Nevertheless, I have listened to someone who had some expertise in the matter.
Clearly, although the 13 per cent. mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) is correct, in many instances the private sector provides the totality of the air traffic control service at particular airports—not for the en-route traffic, but at particular airports. I cannot see why there is an objection to the introduction of private finance to other aspects of the air traffic control service.
Aircraft are constructed and maintained by the private sector, and airports and airlines are run by the private sector. The air services are controlled by the private sector now.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: East Midlands is an important airport; so is Edinburgh airport. The pilots tell us that there is no problem going into Edinburgh, Glasgow or East Midlands. The problem is going into the fourth busiest airport in the world—Gatwick—and the busiest airport in the world—Heathrow. The issue is control over the overcrowded skies on the approach to the city of London.

Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. He qualifies the position somewhat, by saying that it is a matter of the scale of the operation, not the principle involved. That is a useful development.
My concern is about the emphasis that has been placed on safety as the overriding reason for excluding private sector finance. As I said, we already have plenty of examples of that in the provision of air services in this country.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he seriously think that if there is a legal duty on air traffic controllers to consider the interests of their shareholders, they will behave in exactly the same way as if they have a responsibility to consider only the safe passage of air transport in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Todd: I thank my hon. Friend. I worked in the private sector virtually all my working life, and I never regarded myself as having a legal duty to have regard to the shareholders. I had a legal duty to carry out the tasks given to me. I was not involved in the safety aspect, but I also had a responsibility to my own conscience. I would not expect that to be overridden in any circumstances.

Dr. Desmond Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Todd: I am being more generous than others, but I shall give way.

Dr. Turner: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for returning the compliment. The debate is not about private finance per se, because there is no specific opposition to the use of private finance. The debate is about private, for-profit governance. I hope that my hon. Friend will deal with that point.

Mr. Todd: Indeed. I would have preferred a debate about the relative merits of the Government's model in ensuring corporate governance to focusing on safety as the key aspect of our discussions. My hon. Friend has begun to move in that direction, and that is welcome. There are genuine questions about which model produces the best means of modernising NATS.
I am inclined to support the Government's approach because of the prospect of more robust management in the service, based on the new en-route centre project. I have long held the view that the management of highly complex technology projects in the public sector has been almost universally poor. We must tackle that problem, and that is the second reason for my support for the

Government's position: it offers a better prospect of producing successful, high-technology control systems for our airspace.
I have listened carefully to the debate, and I have read the Select Committee report, which was informative. However, none of the arguments deals with the points that worry me. First, the private sector in this country already has safety models. I do not believe that I should return to my constituency and tell my constituents that they should be alarmed by the prospect of the private sector controlling the airspace over their homes.

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. Does he know that NATS operates in a private environment at some airports and provides not only air traffic services but Ministry of Defence and en-route services, albeit not on the scale of the operation at Gatwick?

Mr. Todd: That is an important point. Many services that NATS wins—that is a key word—in a competitive tendering process, are won on a commercial basis. They are subject to commercial contracts, which the relevant airline operators award.
My short contribution has lengthened because of interventions, but I have tried to make the point that the private sector model is not a problem per se. However, I shall listen to the rest of the debate carefully and learn from it, because I am interested in the model that will best produce a modern and effective air traffic control system to secure as far as possible—it cannot be guaranteed—the safety of air travellers and those who live near flight paths.

Mr. Martin Salter: After 18 months of imploring Ministers from the Prime Minister down to reconsider plans to privatise the control of this country's airspace, I am sad to face the prospect tonight of voting against my Government for the first time to keep faith with a clear pre-election pledge that I gave my constituents and that the Labour party gave the public.
Government is a messy business; it is about doing what works, making compromises, listening to a broad range of views and acting accordingly. In my short time in this place, various Bills have received a bumpy ride, not because of the tactics of Opposition Members, much as they would like to believe that they were responsible, but because of the legitimate anxieties of the Government's supporters. I am thinking in particular of lone parent benefit, welfare reform, the Freedom of Information Bill and the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
In almost every case, the Ministers in charge listened carefully to the concerns and, after due modification, we ended up with better legislation and a happier parliamentary Labour party. I regret that I am unable to report any such substantial progress on the private-public partnership for National Air Traffic Services. In fact, there will be no partnership and the Bill alarms us even more because the Government propose to sell off 75 per cent. of NATS shares. That is some partnership—a 75:25 split. It is nothing short of privatisation and it breaks the bond of trust that we made with the electorate, the travelling public and the men and women who gave us the finest, most efficient and safest air traffic service in the world.
I have listened to the arguments about private finance and will deal with them later, but I must tell those who laud the fact that non-NATS staff in the private sector


handle a few air traffic movements that the logical extension of that argument is full-scale privatisation of the service, not a part privatisation. If that is what people want, they should say so.
I thoroughly endorse the new clauses, especially new clause 36, which proposes the trust model. I want to examine briefly the case against the Government's proposals and in favour of establishing that trust, as recommended by the Labour-dominated Transport Sub-Committee. Several cases can be made against the PPP, even in its 49 per cent. form. There is a political case: it clearly breaches the spirit of what we said before the election. There is strong opposition in the House and the country. The last opinion poll data showed that 72 per cent. of the public oppose even the partial privatisation of NATS. This is a matter of trust in more than one sense.
There is an economic case against the PPP, even in its original form. As the Select Committee report and all the other data made clear, aircraft movements have increased by 7 to 8 per cent. year on year. The industry is highly profitable, but it is a safety industry. In 1998–99, it returned pre-tax profits of £64 million. In many years, it has returned a surplus to the Treasury of between £30 million and £40 million. We shall forgo that if we go down this road. The capital receipt, at the upper end of the estimates, would perhaps be some £600 million. Let us set that against the Budget surplus and the increased revenues to the Exchequer, which we all welcome.
There is a safety case, but I shall not emphasise it. Perhaps it has been emphasised too much—my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) nods—and there are powerful political, economic and military and defence cases against the proposal. Our airspace is controlled by the public sector—not from East Midlands airport—so there is a tremendous sharing of military intelligence and information with the armed forces and our NATO allies. Imagine what would happen if we sold off 75 per cent. of the shares in our airspace to, for example, a Serbian-owned company. Imagine the reluctance to undertake the military co-operation that served us so well in the Balkans conflict.
The Government have clear objectives—I have always said that they are entirely laudable—but we desperately need the lateral thinking to deliver those objectives without breaching a pre-election pledge and without the dangers of privatisation. They rightly want to take NATS out of the public sector borrowing requirement. They want it to break free from Treasury orthodoxy. We have achieved that with the Post Office; we can deliver it with either of the models in new clauses 35 or 36.
5.45 pm
The Government want to deliver an investment stream. We all want to do that, and it can be done by means of either the trust or the IPOC—independent publicly owned company—model. We want to achieve a separation in respect of the CAA and the operational requirements of NATS. In effect that happens already, but hon. Members should bear in mind the fact that the CAA lays down only the minimum standard, while NATS operates far above that standard. It is dishonest to suggest that we are providing a safer service as a result of that separation. If we returned to CAA standards, we would be delivering a worse service, so that argument does not stand up.
Yes, we need private-sector management. I am not an ideologue in that regard. I have taken on colleagues in this place who have argued for the return of the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston to the Ministry of Defence, which is the last organisation that should run it. It is a question of who runs the service best. How do we achieve the balance between public concern for public safety and the dynamism of private-sector management? The answer lies in the Select Committee's recommendation of a "not for profit trust".
What will the trust model deliver for us? It will certainly deliver the cash. It worked in Canada, which established NAV Canada in 1995. NAV Canada operated successfully for more than five years, and in the first year delivered from the banks and the private sector an investment stream of $3 billion. The trust model works. It does not compromise safety; it is not subject to takeovers by foreign banks, foreign powers, foreign nationals or Asil Nadir—or any other person in the queue to fund the Tory party. It delivers accountability. It is outwith Treasury rules, so there is no need to compete for hard-earned public resources for schools, hospitals, firefighters and so on. It is politically in line with what we are achieving following our pre-election pledge. Perhaps most tellingly, it has support from surprising quarters.
If the government had decided to adopt this trust model, I doubt there would have been any opposition from the CAA or NATS.
Who said that? None other than Mr. Bill Semple, NATS chief executive, on 22 March 1999. So there we have it: the case for the trust, and the case for keeping our bond of trust.
For the last time, I implore the Government to think again. The case for privatisation has not been made. The Government have not only lost the argument, but failed to take with them the air traffic controllers and pilots on whom our lives depend when we take to the skies. They have failed to convince the public, 72 per cent. of whom are against the proposals, and they have failed to convince their supporters in this place. Only as a result of the legitimate work of the Whips, to whose efficiency I pay tribute, will Members go into the Lobby to support the Government's proposals—in many cases against their better instincts, and in many cases against their consciences. I know that, because I have had conversations about the issue for months.
The safety of the skies, and the safety of my constituents who live under the Heathrow flight path, is too important to be sacrificed on the altar of political virility. This is a privatisation too far—for goodness sake drop it, and drop it now.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: I want to concentrate on amendment No. 454, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne), but first let me make a few comments about the debate that has taken place so far.
Clearly, everyone agrees that the status quo is not an option; the question is, what is the best model to choose? I have listened to some of the arguments against the Government's proposal. The security argument struck me as slightly tenuous and dubious. I have attended debates on similar issues, and security red herrings have always featured. As I consider the argument advanced today to be such a red herring, I shall not say much more about it.
The safety argument is valid, in that we must not do anything to compromise safety. However, I was rather turned off the safety argument when we got into the debate about only 17 per cent. of air traffic control being in the private sector. I did not quite follow the logic of saying, "If it is a small place, you could have a profit motive, but if it was a busier place you could not." I did not quite understand. That seems an argument about numbers. It might be about the experience on staffing levels, but it did not seem to be simply about private ownership. That was one of the things that swayed my mind.

Mr. Dalyell: The trouble is what the pilots who are going into Gatwick and Heathrow believe. All we can report is that they believe that overall control gives them the confidence in a stressful situation.

Mr. Galbraith: Belief is an important factor that we should always consider, but belief is not necessarily fact. People used to believe that the world was flat, but that did not make it flat. Therefore, people's belief is a different issue in these matters.
I do not have to go through all the arguments that people have.

Dr. Strang: Like many of us, my hon. Friend probably flies into Heathrow quite a lot. If he were to stand on the A4 on a Sunday evening, look up in the sky and see all the planes queueing up and coming into the airport, he would realise that there is no comparison between the challenge faced by the aircraft traffic control system there and that faced by some of the small airports. However, it is not just about Heathrow and Gatwick; it is about all the en-route traffic that is the responsibility of NATS.

Mr. Galbraith: I agree. There is no comparison. There is a difference, but the principle that I have been hearing is that if the service is privately owned, there is a threat to safety and, if it is publicly owned, there is not. It should apply across the board. It is not something that we can start chopping up, saying, "It depends on the amount of aircraft that goes in or out." What is the level? Fifty per cent? Seventy-five per cent?

Dr. Desmond Turner: rose—

Mr. Galbraith: I have obviously started a debate.

Dr. Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital to control any form of risk and we are dealing with a highly safety-critical area? At present, in, if you like, meaningful large-scale air traffic control—which sets the standard—there is no risk element from profit motive coming into contest with the safety prerogative. Pressure on air traffic control systems can only increase; the risk elements can only increase. Is it not unwise to introduce another potential risk element to the equation?

Mr. Galbraith: Again, I do not quite follow the logic. Risk will vary with any reason. If it is risky at one level, it is risky at the other. Degrees of risk might vary, but I do not follow the logic and where the dividing line comes.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Galbraith: This is amazing. I am more than delighted to give way to my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Dunwoody: If my hon. Friend were operating in a private hospital as a neurosurgeon and were told that it was more important that he operated much more

frequently to make a bigger profit, would he rather operate in a private, profit-driven hospital or in the national health service?

Mr. Galbraith: The thing that controlled my work in the public sector was laziness because I could not be bothered working too much, so I will just leave it at that.
I drive home the point. What is the level of traffic that makes it dangerous to be owned privately, but not to be owned publicly? Let us have a figure. [Interruption.] Much more than could be coped with? What level is much more than could be coped with?

Mr. Michael Connarty: One more.

Mr. Galbraith: That is a false logic.
On the argument that the service must be publicly owned for safety reasons, I do not have to go through all the various examples, but the publicly owned Chernobyl comes to mind. I do not think the argument follows.
May I move on to say a few words on behalf of the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr? I hope that the Government will consider accepting it. The whole matter has been dogged for a number of years—it was particularly the case under the previous Government—by a lack of commitment to the two-centre strategy. It has constantly cropped up. The issue has arisen again. It is producing great uncertainty and doubt in Ayrshire, including in my hon. Friend's constituency. She is to be highly commended for, and congratulated on, her sterling work for her constituents and on fighting for jobs and investment, something which her predecessor never did, or was not capable of doing. I hope that we can lay the issue to rest and build the provision into the fabric of the Bill, so that the matter can no longer be used as a red herring.
The question of how best to operate the service is a difficult one. Everyone is agreed that the status quo is not an option. I happen to think, particularly having listened to the debate and the false logic involved, that the Government have got it right. That is why I will be happy to support them in the Lobby.

Mr. John McDonnell: I speak from a constituency interest, as well as from a party interest, I suppose. Heathrow is in my constituency. Many of my constituents live under the flight paths. Many of them work at Heathrow, so I have a direct constituency interest and in no way apologise for raising the issue of safety again.
Not a single constituent in my constituency with any involvement in the aviation industry supports the proposal. I have consulted at length within my community. I have met not just trade unions, but members of the community who have worked in the industry for a long time as individuals. I have met air traffic controllers.
We gave commitments before the last general election. Letters went to some of my constituents informing them that the air was not for sale. They believe that a singular act of political disingenuity is being done today.
Air traffic controllers in my constituency have served the country well. They have given us possibly the safest form of transport over the years and the safest aviation industry in the world. Our amendments seek to retain


NATS as a public service in some form. They try to commit us to the promise that we made before the last general election.
The proposal will enable NATS to operate within a commercial structure that will provide the commercial freedom that the Government seek and that the Deputy Prime Minister considers desirable. It is not an argument for the status quo. We have already dealt with that discussion. We all accept the split between the CAA and NATS. It is a compromise; both the IPOC—the independent publicly owned company—and the trust are compromises. It is a desperate plea from me and from many of my comrades and constituents.
Last Thursday, at the London elections, I met lifelong Labour supporters who were not voting Labour for the first time in their lives. We had a virtual strike among campaign activists because we had stopped listening to them. The amendments are a plea to the Deputy Prime Minister and others to listen to what our people are saying. They do not want any further privatisations. No matter how much we try to dress this one up—I have put the arguments—whether it be as a part sale, a public-private partnership, the introduction of commercial disciplines and incentives or whatever, the general public and Labour supporters in particular throughout the country view it as a privatisation and—I echo what has been said—a privatisation too far. They are right because, as has been said, we now find that, in the legislation, the potential private sector stake is not restricted to the initial allocation of shares.
When we discussed that before, I was anxious about only 49 per cent. being retained by the Government. Five per cent. was to go to staff and 46 per cent. to the private sector, but, in future, according to the legislation, there will be no restriction on the privatised NATS issuing further shares to raise finance. The only bottom line on the eventual size of Government shareholding is 25 per cent. At that point, 70 per cent. of shares will be in the hands of the private sector. I call that privatisation; I believe that most people will believe that it is full privatisation.
6 pm
As for employee shareholding, yesterday, in a letter from Lord Macdonald, we were informed:
Staff shares can only be sold to other staff or a staff trust.
I cannot find anything in the Bill that guarantees that.
After a certain time, 75 per cent. of the shares could be in private hands. The private hands could be those of the private sector strategic partner that the Deputy Prime Minister has prayed in aid in supporting the legislation, the Airline Group. Eventually, that group could possess control.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when the Trustee Savings Banks Act 1985 was passed, certain time-limited safeguards were provided on the maximum size of any one shareholding? Once those safeguards lapsed, the entire shareholding situation changed, and, very rapidly, TSB went with Lloyds.

Mr. McDonnell: My hon. Friend is an experienced Member. He makes a valid point and offers a history lesson that we should all bear in mind as we debate the proposal.
As I said, the Airline Group has been prayed in aid in support of the proposal. Of course it supports the proposal. It could gain control not only of the NATS company, but of the air itself. A few months ago, in The Observer business section, a leak revealed that the beneficent, altruistic Airline Group, which wants to become the key shareholder under the proposal, has initiated a discussion on how the airlines comprising the group could receive preferential treatment and access via NATS, which they would jointly own and control. I believe that the Airline Group is proposing a physical and financial cartel. The legislation, however, contains no provision to prevent such a cartel from being created.
Interestingly, yesterday's letter from Lord Macdonald reveals that, although the Government are willing to countenance a NATS board where the private sector may have 75 per cent. control, there will be no representation on it for trade unions. Instead, trade unions will be offered a stakeholder consultative council in which they will be but one interest among many. That is not a partnership, but a sell-out. It is a takeover.
I make no apology for raising the safety issue. After the railways were privatised, we had Southall and Paddington, which is down the track from my constituency. I lost constituents. Those disasters put beyond doubt the link between privatisation and public safety. The public sector should have the preponderant role in guaranteeing public safety. In the past fortnight, we have even had reports of complaints about private bus companies' safety policy in recruiting drivers.
In this debate, we have discussed balances of proportionality in safety. Just to put it beyond doubt, the fact is that those who know the aviation industry tell us that there are doubts about safety in the private sector. In 1999, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee reported on aviation safety, and it drew the Government's attention to the safety risks posed by commercial pressures in the aviation industry. I invite hon. Members to read that report, which states:
in spite of the protestations of the airlines that "safety [is] our most important priority…[we] do not seek competitive advantage as far as safety is concerned", concern remains that in the event of conflict between safety considerations and profit margins, airlines may favour their profit margins.
Aviation safety is already a concern.
In theory—let us get the theory right—there is a view that commercial pressures within a privately owned company create risks to safety. It does not require a great theoretical leap to understand why. A private company's first priority is profit; every other factor is secondary and short term. The public-private partnership needs to produce a return for its shareholders. The company will not be able to increase charges, so profits can be maintained only by reducing costs, which entails reducing staff and cutting equipment.
The Government do not accept that that creates a risk. However, when I take off in an airplane with my family, I want to hear reassurances about safety not from the Deputy Prime Minister, but from pilots, backed up by professional air traffic controllers. Those who are strongest in opposing the proposal are pilots, air traffic controllers and our own Transport Sub-Committee.
It is not as though the Committee has not had a good go at this type of proposal. Year after year, we have had reports—they could not have been more categorical—


advising the current Government, and the previous one, that this proposal is the worst possible option. It is the worst because it privatises part of the regulation system. Air traffic controllers are a part of that system—keeping people apart and dealing with commercial competition between airlines—but we are selling them out.
As has already been said today, no other country has privatised its air traffic services. The Government have seized on the comments of a visiting Dutch Minister, who said that his country may consider such a proposal and that it is an interesting option. Pardon me, but I do not think that that constitutes an international riot clamouring for privatisation.
The Government have circulated detailed notes on discussions on safety that were held last week between unions and the Government. I am grateful for them, but I also note that they show that the unions refused to sign up to the proposal or to state that they were satisfied about safety. Today, they have reiterated in their briefings to us that they do not support the proposal, which they believe will increase risk to the travelling public.
Let us be honest with people. How did the proposal arise? It was made because, in the previous general election campaign, the Tories found a black hole in our budgetary plans. The telephone call went out to each Front-Bench team to find a few hundred million, and the proposal was plucked out of the air. Let us not kid ourselves about it. The proposal is a political disaster and, potentially, a physical disaster.
My constituents are the ones who are most at risk. They will never forgive a Government who put dogma before their safety. As has already been said, those who have attacked my constituents for their opposition to the proposal have attributed to them two motives, the first of which is industrial. However, the fact is that my air traffic controller constituents are passing up a £13 million handout because they want to keep the skies safe.
Ideology is supposed to be the second motive for opposition to the proposal, but I say that ideology is forcing the proposal on us. There are now some Labour Members who think, "Public sector bad, private sector good." As a previous leader of our party said, when theory gets pickled into dogma, we wind up with a Labour Government privatising our air.
Brian Cooper was one of the train drivers who died at Paddington. He was my constituent. Based on my memory, I will never support a further privatisation. I will vote for this group of amendments.

Mr. Donald Gorrie: I should like to respond to the speech by my fellow countryman, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith), but also to animadvert on the absence of some of my other countrymen. The Scottish National party made a big issue of the proposals in the Scottish Parliament, where it has no authority over them at all, but SNP Members have declined to appear in the Chamber to participate in today's debate. Some of them may come to vote, but I have seen none in the building.
The three main arguments on the subject, to which I have listened with great interest, boil down to a safety issue, a political continuity issue and the fact that those who know about the subject say that they disagree with the proposals. National security is an additional issue.
Like the rest of us, the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden can make up his own mind on safety. However, the argument that airplanes flying into Heathrow and Gatwick will be safer if air traffic services are under commercial pressure to make a profit is not an intellectual concept that I can sign up to.
The political continuity argument is important, but the hon. Gentleman did not deal with it. Things change. It is legitimate for a party to change its position in the light of changing circumstances. Ministers' position would be legitimate if they could say, "We promised in the past that we would oppose privatisation or partial privatisation of air traffic control. However, things have changed in the following ways, and we have therefore changed our mind." That would be legitimate, but Ministers have not done it. They have merely adopted this new policy. I think that such ditching of promises contributes to the low turnouts at elections. There is a clear connection between the public being turned off—or scunnered, as we say in Scotland—by politicians who, collectively, do not stay firm on what we have said we would do.

Mr. Robert Syms: Like Scottish student fees.

Mr. Gorrie: We have delivered on Scottish student fees. I would be happy to argue with the hon. Gentleman about that at another time.
With all due respect, neither the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden nor I know all that much about radar and air traffic control. The people who do know about it are all against the Government on this. Surely it is compelling that those who work in the area and have no axe to grind in terms of profit are all on the same side. The House should support them, and not listen to Ministers who seem to be driven by some extraordinary remote control.

Mr. Geraint Davies: I wish to make a short speech in favour of the Government's proposal. I declare a personal interest, in that, over the years, I have flown thousands of passengers on holiday—using NATS, of course—and I have a vested interest in keeping them alive.
Any private operation has a concern for safety in terms of commercial viability and being sensitive to customers. There are a number of common objectives across the House, including the guarantee of heavy investment to secure the best air traffic management and safety system in the world. The system must become a benchmark for best practice. Beyond that, we want to extend our operations into European air space and to be a model for other air traffic control systems.
We do not have a standstill situation. It is not good enough for people to say that we have the best system in the world, and that it will remain the best in the world. Britain is the biggest hub for international airlines in the world, and business is growing by 6 per cent. a year. To continue as we are is not a sustainable option. The reality is that the system is becoming more complex and more congested.
Who has the resources in terms of skills and technology—as well as cash—to sort it out? What is the best incentive structure for efficiency and safety? Not every speaker has approached the issues in an upfront way.
Frankly, in certain airports, NATS needs to deliver safety systems that are not being delivered. In Edinburgh, we want a new NATS to bring in a requirement for night-time approach radar at affordable prices. That service should be deliverable to all significant airports as congestion grows.
Those who think that NATS is great and that everything is all right should know that this is a moving picture, and we need a system that delivers increasing standards and provisions. Those who speak about increasing congestion at Heathrow and Gatwick are right, and that is the very reason why we need a mechanism for more investment and skills.

Mr. Connarty: My ears pricked up when I heard my hon. Friend mention increased services in Edinburgh. Is there any suggestion or evidence that those could not be delivered by the trust model or by a wholly publicly owned company if it were allowed to get the money from the private sector?

Mr. Davies: We need increasing standards and resources from the CAA. We need also to be confident that those complex services are delivered. I am trying to show that the model put forward by the Government satisfies all those criteria. It is not enough to say that we can fund safety, and we need to investigate the matter carefully. I recognise the sincerity and commitment of those who argue for fresh resourcing for the current system, and I respect their position. However, I ask everyone to listen to all sides of the debate.
6.15 pm
There is some consensus in the industry—across the airlines, the pilots and the unions—in terms of a public-private partnership. One would not have thought that from listening to some of the speeches today. Some of the unions—including the pilots—are sympathetic towards public-private partnership. There is a debate about corporate governance, and there is consensus that extra cash should not necessarily be at the whim of individual Governments, who will have priorities such as the NHS.
There is consensus on the need for certainty in investment flows. There is consensus on the opportunity for risk transfer into areas where risk can be managed more effectively, such as information technology systems. There is a view that there is something to be added from the private sector. The horizons for air traffic control should go beyond UK airspace, or any European airspace, and into other airspace. With the current dynamics of the industry, it is not enough simply to think about planes flying over Britain.
I am not of the view that the private sector necessarily does project management better than the public sector. The Croydon tramlink—a public-private partnership—is four months late. However, the point is that the cost of the delay is with the private sector, not the public sector, and there is a lot of pressure to deliver. Nobody is saying that the private sector manages everything well, but there is an issue of risk transfer and of who does what best.
People have focused on the tensions between safety and profit, and between operational standards and costs. Those are relevant, and it is not enough to dismiss them.
The Select Committee recommended that the CAA should be separate from NATS, and everyone agrees on that. That separation of regulation from operation has been introduced on the railways and is much to be welcomed. Ministers must underline the fact that the CAA's guidance and operation should be transparent so that people know what is happening and that safety is being enforced.
We have debated whether the profit motive is in collision with the idea of investing in safety. If the new NATS has ambitions to take over European airspace and to sell itself as a model of best practice, surely it is in its commercial interest to invest in safety, as safety is its business.

Mr. John Smith: Is there not a more fundamental point? The product of NATS is safety; the very service that NATS provides is safety. There is no safety dimension: NATS could not survive unless it delivered safety.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why there is an incentive to innovate in safety. NATS must sell safety and be the safest system in the world, with new technology to provide better safety and fewer congestion delays. That is its motivation.
One of the amendments refers to a not-for-profit model, and the airlines are keen on that model. If they buy NATS—I am not averse to that—the airlines can make their money by investing in NATS and by reducing delays at airports by 10 per cent, after which they could make an enormous profit by selling tickets to people flying on their planes.
The amount that the airlines would have to invest in the system is not all that great, and they have £24 billion worth of aircraft sitting on the tarmac in Britain. The idea that they would not invest in safety, in information technology and in efficiency does not stand up. Given the fact that they are vertically linked in the air business, it is not easy to put a limit on how much they would bid.
We must also consider the management of technology. I have served on the Public Accounts Committee for the past three years, and week in, week out, we see examples of public sector management of very large IT infrastructure programmes going massively wrong. There are cultural issues and issues about whether we are paying civil servants enough to secure the skills to compete and negotiate on an equal level, but that is another debate. The private sector is in a position to manage the skills and the IT risks.
There are complex issues of cash, IT, management and, ultimately, safety. My view is that the interests of securing our future as the international hub of air transport with the best record of safety and efficiency will be served by the model that the Government have proposed.

Mr. Frank Field: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In your judgment, if we are to have three votes on this group, will we not need to conclude the debate by about 7 o'clock?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is an observation that may be widely agreed with in the House. We shall observe what we shall observe in due course.

Mrs. Fyfe: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) on her campaign over the years to secure hundreds of jobs in her part of the world. If she has succeeded in that endeavour, that is no mean achievement.
I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) was still in the Chamber. He accused those who disagree with him of being illogical. When I see him, I will have to ask him what adjective he would apply to someone who has considered an issue for considerably less time than those who work in the industry and provide the service, yet thinks that he knows better than they do what is good for the service.
This is not a partnership, as others have said. It is a privatisation. The Government's holding can be reduced to 25 per cent. without the House being consulted again. Some day we will not even have that 25 per cent. The then Government will say, "What are you complaining about? You went three quarters of the way down this road." Joseph Chamberlain said 100 years ago that he did not want water to be held in the private sector because
some things … are too important to leave to bodies whose first motive is profit and whose first fiduciary duty is to their shareholders.
I would not disagree with him.
I am not saying, "All private bad, all public good," but there is a difference, and one day it could be a crucial one. I sought some figures from the Library to compare the safety records of the public and private sectors. I was told that 85 per cent. of private sector employees were employed in establishments with occupational health measures, compared with 100 per cent. of public sector employees. The proportion of employees covered directly by such measures were 66 per cent. and 99 per cent. respectively. That is a useful measure of how the private sector can often be good on safety but can also fall down on it. The public sector is certainly under more pressure to deliver totally on safety.
If the pilots are not convinced, I am not convinced. I do not believe that the two alternative proposals can be brushed off with a one-line statement that neither fits the needs of the service. I would hope to hear more from the Government.
Before the 1997 general election, our party said:
Our air is not for sale.
I featured that in my election campaign, and I will not go back on my word to those who voted for me unless I see good reason for doing so—and I do not see sufficient reason here.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Lady agree that glider pilots, the British Gliding Association and the General Aviation Manufacturers and Traders Association are concerned that if the airways are sold off, they will be sold out, and probably pushed out of the sky?

Mrs. Fyfe: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point.
No other country in the world has privatised its air traffic control. Are other countries not faced with hard choices, too? We keep on hearing from the Government, when they want to do something that is unpopular and unwanted by their own supporters, that we are making a

hard choice. On some things, we should make a choice that people like, then fewer people might stay at home at elections.
Why are the Government flying in the face of public unhappiness at this step? Why are we ignoring those who work at NATS and those who fly the planes? They have not merely gone through the motions of opposing the Bill: they have campaigned ceaselessly. They are serious about this. There was a time when a Labour Government would have listened more carefully to those who actually do the work.
I have been reading the Government's briefings and I gather that a not-for-profit trust would be allowed to compete for the contract. If such a trust would be acceptable, why cannot the Government accept a new clause that allows us to go straight for that option and keep the private motive out?

Mr. John Redwood: I support my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who has done a superb job in piloting the Opposition case, and I look forward to what he has to say later. I support new clause 26, to which he may speak if he catches your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In past debates on these matters, I have always declared the fact that my wife works for British Airways, but I can assure the House that she no longer does so. She has resigned from British Airways, so she is no longer privy to the ways of the board or beholden to the company.
One of the big issues that has come out in this fascinating parliamentary debate is what the Government are trying to achieve. Is it a privatisation or is it not? As I urged several privatisations for love on previous Conservative Administrations, and for profit on Governments elsewhere in the world, when I was in business, perhaps my remarks may have some interest and merit.
It is clear to me that privatisation occurs if control passes from the Government to a private sector interest. By that test, this is self-evidently a privatisation. The Government may try to dress it up in the new language of public-private partnership, but on this occasion that is either misleading or a load of ideological claptrap. This is a privatisation and it must be judged as such. We must apply the normal tests: whether it will be sold to the right people or group of interests; whether it will be sold at the right price; whether it will be run better than if it had remained in the public sector; and whether there might be a better way of serving the public interest and securing gain for the public purse.
In all my experience of privatisations around the world, this is by far and away the worst model that I have ever seen. It manages to combine all the worst features of privatisation and avoid practically all the good ones. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex is right to say that the official Opposition cannot support this version of privatisation and was right, in his ever-helpful spirit, to suggest a better alternative.
The models on offer from Opposition Members—the independent trust and the public corporation—which we have heard debated at some length, represent a much better interim position, at least, than the Government's version of privatisation. It would be far better to leave it alone or to keep it under the new control and ownership


that has been suggested by Labour Members until it could be privatised properly than to do what the Government propose.
6.30 pm
The proposals are a kind of punk Thatcherism. The Government have a strange love-hate relationship with the Thatcherite message. As one who was proud to be involved during the 1980s and thought that a lot of good things happened then, I now recognise that it was a long time ago. The Government should recognise that the problems and solutions of this century are rather different. If they wish to be Thatcherite, however, they should try to understand the essence of the Thatcherite experience instead of producing a punk version that true Thatcherites cannot possibly support.
A proper privatisation would surely seek to maximise wider share ownership, make sure that the British national interest was secure and protect the organisation from the possibility of being sold on the cheap to a single foreign interest. I have never come across a Government who wished to sell control for only 46 per cent. of the shares. One would at the very least expect them to sell 51 per cent. of the shares to the controlling interest.

The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): The Conservatives gave it away.

Mr. Redwood: The Secretary of State dares to say that, but the Conservative Administration gave away shares to company employees, which was a good thing to do. They did not give them away to people from outside who had the money to buy. They were careful to protect important public interests from foreign acquisition by using golden shares that worked.
I am concerned that the present Government are inventing a golden share that may well not work and may not protect the national interest. There is a strong possibility that the Government will end up selling 46 per cent. and a controlling interest for less than 46 per cent. of the true value. The numbers that they have trotted out so far and have got into a tangle over show that they envisage a sale at fire sale prices when there is absolutely no reason to sell an important national asset at a knock-down price.
I do not wish to intrude on the debate about how Labour Members feel about supporting or not supporting the Government who stated clearly before the election that the air was not for sale. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I made no such statement, so we do not have that problem when deciding how to vote tonight. It is an important issue. I can speak from experience of supporting a Government who occasionally broke their word. I know how difficult it was and what an uncomfortable feeling it was. I always felt better when I stuck to what the Government had originally said and did not let down my voters by going along with the change of tack or script.
I hope that the Government are aware that there is unity across the Floor of the House tonight on whether or not this botched and muddled privatisation should go ahead. The House should categorically say no; it is the wrong

privatisation at the wrong time. It is stripping a national asset on the cheap. It is punk Thatcherism of the worst and that is why there will be surprising unity in the Lobbies tonight on this issue.

Jane Griffiths: It has been fascinating to listen to my constituency neighbour, the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), talking about punk Thatcherism, which may be an insult to punks and Thatcherites alike. Perhaps I am naive in these matters, but I cannot understand how an organisation that operates in the private sector, as NATS does, can be privatised and how we can describe the Government's proposals as privatisation. However, as the word has been bandied about, I shall let it go.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) referred to the number of airports in the private sector that are not part of NATS and asked whether he should be concerned. Other hon. Members said that as only small numbers of air movements were not controlled by NATS, it did not really matter. However, if one air movement at any airport was not conducted safely or was not subject to proper controls and that aircraft fell out of the sky, we should all be concerned.

Mrs. Dunwoody: As soon as any aircraft moves out of any airfield it is immediately taken over by an air traffic controller from the National Air Traffic Services who controls its flight wherever it goes.

Jane Griffiths: I understand that and I thank my hon. Friend. However, my point relates to the numbers. I have figures for 1998, the most recent year for which there are complete statistics, which show that some 22 million passengers were carried for at least half of their journey outside the control of NATS. That is a lot of people by anyone's understanding. Almost half the air traffic movements in that year were, at least partially, not under the control of NATS. There are airports all over the country where NATS does not operate. They are in or near the constituencies of many hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, I have never heard of an hon. Member going to one of those airports and saying to the people there, "It is a pity, but you are not quite as good as the boys and girls at Heathrow and Gatwick. You are a bit second class and it is not good enough."
Thinking about those matters leads me to seek reassurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If all those people are working as air traffic controllers—and there may or may not be problems—will the new safety system that the Government propose for NATS affect the regulation of those operating outside NATS? Will it create more of a division? It does not seem to me that it will, but I should like some reassurance.
We have heard some dud logic today. Is safety an issue? Of course it is because safety is the product of air traffic control. Air traffic control exists to make the skies safe, but one cannot be a little bit safe. Either something is safe or it is not. It is like saying that one cannot be a little bit pregnant. Safety, however, can never be totally guaranteed no matter what system we have. There were horrendous rail crashes under British Rail and subsequently after privatisation.
Unsafe practice is bad practice, whether it happens in the private sector or the public sector. I am not ideological about it, and I do not believe that any right hon. or


hon. Member should be. We should all be concerned about moving into the 21st and 22nd centuries with good, safe, dynamic and vibrant air traffic control. So much in the Bill has not been discussed because we have been talking about air traffic control, which matters a lot. We should vote on the amendments as people's views are important, but it is a pity that the issue has overshadowed so many other good things that we are doing in transport. I shall not be supporting the amendments.

Mr. Dalyell: In his serious and thoughtful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), who takes a different view, referred to some pilots sharing the general views of the Government. Like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I travel every week between London and Scotland and on 17 occasions now—as will be borne out by the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) and others—I have sent my executive card or my diamond card to the captain to ask whether he is prepared to have a word about air traffic control. On every occasion the captain has said yes, other than when he is engaged in training. I have asked the following question: "Do you, captain, back up the views of the British Air Line Pilots Association?" and on every occasion the answer has been emphatically, "Yes. We think that Chris Darke and his colleagues are right and we are very deeply concerned." Senior captains of British Airways have used the word "dangerous". It is not my word—it is theirs.

Mr. Geraint Davies: May I make it clear that I said not that the british air line pilots association, Chris Darke and all pilots agreed with the Government's prescription, but that they agreed that a form of public-private partnership was the way forward? The debate is not about public-private partnership but the nature of corporate governance. The issue is whether the two converge. My hon. Friend will find that I am not disagreeing with what he says.

Mr. Dalyell: I am grateful for that correction.
Time presses, and I wish to ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State this question: why has he failed to persuade the pilots if his scheme is so watertight? They are serious people. Why is BALPA so opposed to it? We need an answer to that question.
Let me share one other thought. What will people in this country think of the House if we are seen to impose on controllers and pilots, against their best judgment, a scheme that they do not want? Heaven help us if there is a crash, let alone a mid-air crash. What would people think of the House of Commons doing that?

Mr. Pike: I am glad to have the opportunity of saying a few words in the debate. I speak as one who has not yet been convinced about which way to vote. We have not yet heard the Government's case. Although I have considerable sympathy with the new clauses, I have not been completely convinced that I should vote against the Government tonight. I have not yet voted against the Government, but they have still to convince me to go through the No Lobby.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) spoke earlier in the debate. The reports of the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, of which my hon. Friend is the Chairman, have probably influenced my views on the issues more than the debate so far.
Obviously, safety must be paramount. I would not for a moment accuse my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions of not believing safety to be of the utmost importance. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) spoke about having a choice of planes. If airlines are not safe, there is something sadly wrong with a system that allows planes into the air. I do not particularly want to be on the ground, whether I have a choice or not, if the plane above me is about to crash. That worries me.
On the forms of ownership, golden shares have become meaningless. Most of them were time-limited, and some have already lapsed, so that does not convince me. Share ownership for staff after privatisation has not been all that important. The worker-management buy-outs that took place in some sectors, which some of us strongly supported, ultimately sold out to Stagecoach, so that form of succession did not last very long.
When we compare what is offered by the Bill and what is offered by new clauses 35 and 36, there does not seem to be much difference when it comes to the public sector borrowing requirement. I understand the Government's attitude, as it would ensure that the necessary investment can be made. However, it is time that the Government found a way of financing capital requirements for Government and public spending as opposed to revenue expenditure, without merging the two. It is nonsense that the Government should not be able to borrow on the normal market for long-term finance without such borrowing being included in the PSBR. It is nonsense to make a judgment in the year in which the expenditure is incurred.
6.45 pm
The real difference is the cash that we will get for the shares—whether it will be 50 or 75 per cent. The Government do not need that money at this stage. The first tranche of money from the recent sale of the mobile phone network bands, which will be available over the next 20 years, is more than double what we will get for the sale of these shares. My right hon. Friend will argue that we need to spend money on hospitals and schools. However, I do not believe that the money from the sale of these shares is required.
I remain unconvinced of the Government's case. I ask my right hon. Friend, even at this late stage, to think again about these provisions and say that he is prepared to consider them before the Bill is dealt with in the other place. We still have time to find a compromise. New clauses 35 and 36 propose what I believe to be solutions that the Government should not totally reject.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I promise that I will be brief—I simply wish to make a couple of points.
I have signed the three new clauses. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions will give sympathetic consideration to the case put so eloquently by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne). As my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) rightly said, my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr has fought this campaign in a remarkably sustained and tireless way, quite unlike her predecessor, and she and her case deserve to be listened to.
In a debate such as this, which is largely, if not completely, confined to Labour contributions, I am reminded of the words of a retired deputy in Dail Eireann. He said that, as a Government Back Bencher, he always felt that, if he praised the Government, he would be accused of sycophancy by some, but if he had the temerity to criticise the Government, he would be accused of treachery by others.
I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends who have signed the new clauses will not accuse me of sycophancy when I say that my old friend the Deputy Prime Minister is utterly committed to the very highest safety standards. I first met him in the mid-1960s when he and I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), fought campaigns to enhance the safety of merchant seamen and fishermen. So I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend—so does my family, which is made up of fishermen and their wives, daughters and sons—where maritime safety is concerned. For me—and, I am sure, for my family—that extends to his commitment to rail and air safety.
I will now be accused by some of treachery for saying that I have some criticisms of the Bill. I genuinely believe that the trust option offered in this civil-minded debate is the best way forward for the Government. I asked my right hon. Friend a question at a meeting, and then disappeared before he had the opportunity to answer it. I offer my apologies to him publicly for that, but I had visitors from Australia to see to. The question was: why are we out of kilter with so many other states? Some of those states have right-wing Governments, but all of them seem to believe that such services should remain public.
I have to be honest and point out that I am old, and thus old-fashioned enough to believe that some institutions, organisations, services and facilities should remain in the public domain. I believe that of the Prison Service and of NATS. I am happy to come out of the closet and say that, ideologically, it is better that some services and some resources are managed in the public interest by public servants—servants of the state. I shall not apologise for being old-fashioned in my views.
Furthermore, I have long opposed private finance initiatives and public-private partnerships for the building of schools and hospitals—I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Galbraith) is no longer in the Chamber. I have had to accept a PFI for the building of a service for geriatric patients in my constituency, but I have publicly voiced my opposition to private involvement in such an essential service.
I hope that my friendship with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will not be diminished, but philosophically and ideologically, I think that the Government are wrong. I say that with great reluctance because I have great respect for, and trust in, my right hon. Friend. All my hon. Friends who have spoken in favour of the new clauses have emphasised safety; they are right to do so. I do not take issue with those who support the Government, but safety measures should remain in the public domain. I shall always believe that. That is why I shall support the new clauses, even though they will not be accepted by the Government.
However, I do ask the Government to take heed of the powerful case eloquently presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. They must concede that case. I hope that my right hon. Friend will reconsider that and other issues.
As I am such an old-fashioned ideologue, perhaps it is just as well that I am not seeking reselection, but I hope that my right hon. Friend will listen to those who argue against him in this civil-minded debate.

Mr. Alan Keen: As time is limited, I shall concentrate briefly on the crux of the issue. Since my election to this place in 1992, I have often been asked what it is like to be in Parliament. My standard answer is that it is better than going to work. I know that we work long hours in this place, but I worked in the private sector for the whole of my previous working life and it is pretty tough there—efficiency is achieved through drive and ruthlessness.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said that he wanted robust management—so do I. I want robust management in the design and installation of the IT systems and in their testing and re-testing. However, I want that robust management to end at the interface between managers who have to answer to shareholders and the people in front of screens who talk to pilots for hour after hour. I do not want robust management there. That is the crux of the debate.
There are parallels with PFI in hospitals. I strongly support PFI in such cases—so no ideology is involved. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) pointed out, we do not allow the people who build hospitals or those who have 25-year contracts to clean them to be involved on the clinical side—carrying out operations.
My objection to the Government's proposals is based on that one issue. I repeat that I want to remove robust management—chasing profits and applying cost pressures—from that interface. I do not want such management to control the individuals who have the crucial job of talking to pilots.
Some hon. Members have asked whether there is a difference between a small and a large airport in relation to safety. I have lived within five miles of Heathrow airport for 37 years. Those who do not live around the airport cannot fully understand the dangers. I lived close to the area of the Staines plane crash. Of course, that was nothing to do with air traffic control; it was a faulty plane. The trial taking place in Holland reminds us of the devastation that can happen on the ground—never mind a collision in the sky. My constituents suffer from aircraft noise day in and day out; a plane lands or takes off every 90 seconds. They deserve the best service that we can give them.
For the third time, I repeat that we do not want robust management to affect those people who sit in front of the screens doing that vital job. If we want our Olympic athletes to break world records, we take every worry away from them so that they can focus on their running or whatever event they are competing in. The people in front of those screens as just as important—indeed, they are much more important than Olympic athletes. We should treat them in the same way. They should not be subject to the pressures of the private sector.

Mr. Michael Connarty: I join my other colleagues in commending my hon. Friend the Member


for Ayr (Ms Osborne) on her speech on amendment No. 454. She has worked tirelessly to convince the Government that, whatever other structures are put in place, they must manage a two-centre strategy. Given that she is a Parliamentary Private Secretary—as I was for a year—I realise how difficult it must have been for her at times to convince the Government. Governments obviously assume that they have the votes of PPSs, who will be loyal. My hon. Friend has worked hard and I commend her on the amendment. It represents one last throw of an important dice—to include in the measure a commitment to the people of Prestwick and the workers there, so that they can be confident that, whatever the management system, there will be a second air traffic control centre.
I seek one assurance from the Deputy Prime Minister. The amendment includes the words "was commissioned". How does my right hon. Friend interpret that? Does it mean that projects that are only at the planning stage? If the planning stage has already been initiated, will the project be encompassed under the provision? That is an important point, because Prestwick is at that stage—no bricks and mortar have been laid, so the project is at an early stage.
I prefer new clause 37 because it would require a report to the House on the progress of those establishments before any commitment is given on transferring assets or shares—it would be the belt and braces for that operation. I should like either new clause 35 or new clause 36 to be passed because they offer a better structure than that proposed by the Government—whether the percentage share is 46:5:49 or 75:25.
A couple of small matters keep coming up. It has been said that, because the rates for air traffic control are set by Europe, a publicly owned corporation could never finance its investment of £1.3 billion. In that case, why are no other EU air traffic services in the private sector? They, too, have to set their rates under European controls.
The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) made an important point. If there were better IT efficiency in NATS, there would be a greater flow through airports; there would be fewer delays and income would increase. That would be true of the private sector—it would be a public or a private option.
On management, the amendments on the trust model state clearly that all those involved in management would be from the private and the public sectors. The motivation would be the same for a trust or an IPOC as it would be for anyone else.
Why is a public plc acceptable for the Post Office and not for NATS? As a member of the CWU—Communication Workers Union—parliamentary panel, I have to ask whether the measure is a Trojan horse. If air traffic control is privatised, will there be full privatisation of the Post Office? Will the Secretary of State explain the meaning of clause 49(4), if it does not mean that 75 per cent. will be owned by the private sector and 25 per cent by the public sector? Is that not privatisation?
There is a difference between regulatory control and private profit. I recently picked up an example in the Financial Times which said that airlines in America have asked for a decrease of 10 per cent. in the amount of fresh air that circulates in cabins. They have done than to save millions of dollars in the cost of the fuel that is used to circulate the fresh air. If they are willing to make that cut, they will be willing to make others.
7 pm
My final point is one that I have made time and again. I am against the proposal in principle. When we campaigned against water privatisation in Scotland, we were opposed not just to the method, but to the principle. I am against the proposal, and I believe that the Government will pay the consequences, because the people who voted us in are against both the principle of the privatisation and the method to be used.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I am the 22nd Member to take part in the debate, which has been an exceptional parliamentary occasion of great credit to the House as a whole. We have had an extremely good debate.
Part of the concern expressed by Labour Members reflects a point made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) about whether the proposal is or is not a privatisation. Part of the concern has revolved around the issue of safety, but Conservative Members do not accept that there is any inherent conflict between safety and the right kind of privatisation. As has been pointed out, our airlines and airports are already in private hands and they are part of profitable enterprises, and civil aviation just happens to be the safest form of transport. A sensible privatisation scheme would present no safety threat at all.
I wish to speak initially to our new clause 26, which sets out the policy on which the Conservative party stood at the previous general election. We have proposed a full flotation of NATS to create a great new British company with effective golden share arrangements that would protect the business from unwelcome foreign takeover and provide the widest possible share ownership among the British public.
Labour's proposed public-private partnership, however, is something of a mess. The Secretary of State has many friends, but not, I fear, on this issue. Although we reject the notion that safety is incompatible with private ownership, we have several concerns about the proposed scheme and its circumstances.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) pointed out, this public-private partnership provides poor value for the taxpayer. National Air Traffic Services is probably worth between £1 billion and £1.5 billion and the PPP offers release of loans of about £300 million and net proceeds of £15 million from the sale of operational control of the business. A straight flotation would raise considerably more for the taxpayer, especially if sold in stages rather than in one go. Furthermore, sale proceeds are likely to be significantly enhanced after 2002 when the Swanwick centre becomes operational. Our amendment therefore also argues for delay.
Labour's PPP will not extend share ownership. It is a complex part trade sale, forced on NATS to try to disguise the reality that it is just privatisation by another name. A straight flotation would create thousands of new shareholders.
The strongest bidders appear to be foreign companies: Lockheed Martin, which is NATS's key supplier, is from the United States; Raytheon, which is working with the state-owned German air traffic control company, DFS, is also from the US; and Thompson CSF, with its avionics


subsidiary, Airsys, is a French virtually state-owned company. The only UK bidder appears to be the Airline Group, but there is no guarantee that its bid will be successful. The PPP will create not a new British company, but probably a foreign-owned subsidiary, and that does not appear to be in the national interest.
Sale of control to a trade bidder carries extra risks. A straight flotation provides for continuation of the same business, but under the same management. A trade investor offers the downside risk of adverse interference in the management of the company and, in particular, in procurement issues. NATS could finish up tied to a less satisfactory supplier of equipment and there are also risks of transferring control to a state-owned entity in another country.
Moreover, the shareholding structure of the PPP creates its own uncertainties about who will be in control of the business. The Government intend to hold more shares than the so-called strategic partner and the draft articles of association for the partnership company and the draft strategic partnership agreement are both complex documents. In this privatisation, confused responsibilities about who is responsible for safety could give rise to safety concerns. NATS's management are excellent and they have no need for outside expertise from a trade investor.
Recent developments in European Community law mean that a sale at this time also presents a threat to national security on two fronts, and I totally reject the idea that this point is a red herring. First, after the PPP, the UK Government will not be able to determine who owns the controlling interest in NATS. The Bill provides for a golden share, but, in July 1999, the European Commission issued an opinion on golden shares in former state-owned companies as a preliminary to infraction proceedings against BAA's golden share. The Commission says that such shares are illegal under European Community law because they infringe provisions on the free movement of capital and the freedom of establishment.
Secondly, it is likely that the provisions in the Bill, which provide for the intervention of the Secretary of State to protect national security, are also invalid under EC law. NATS deals with military flight plans and has knowledge of the whereabouts of military assets at times of international tension and during hostilities. Although that issue will be dealt with in a later debate, I point out that Royal Air Force chiefs of staff have expressed concern that sensitive intelligence information could be compromised.
In short, Labour' s PPP is deeply flawed. Moreover, the assurances given by the Government are false. They continue to mention the strategic partner, but why does clause 53 refer to the possibility of flotation? In Committee, the Minister told us that recourse to immediate flotation can be made under the Bill in the event that a suitable strategic partner cannot be found.
Why do the Government continue to talk about the retention of 49 per cent. when clause 49, now that it has been amended in Committee, specifically spells out that the Government's shareholding could be reduced to 25 per cent? What will happen if there is a rights issue then? What is clause 49 worth when it has a Henry VIII

provision stuck in it so, at a stroke of pen, the Government can, at a later date, tear up the golden share and the share restrictions provisions in the clause? It is incumbent on the Secretary of State to tell us exactly what the golden share is for, given that the European Commission has made it clear that it regards it to be illegal under European Community law.
The Government's PPP is a bad privatisation that we cannot support. The Select Committee described it as
the worst of all the possible options.
The Conservative party invented privatisation, but we have never been the party of privatisation for its own sake. Privatisation should be a means of improving efficiency and effectiveness, but Labour's privatisation carries risks and disadvantages compared to our scheme.
The Deputy Prime Minister has brought this so-called PPP to the House only because the Treasury is forcing him into the privatisation against his will. It is flawed by the Government's attempt to pretend that they are not privatising something when they are. Having promised before the election that
our air is not for sale
Labour is now promising a back-door privatisation. Our amendments sets out our policy for the privatisation of NATS—the solution that the aviation industry would truly prefer once national security issues have been resolved. We will vote to try to stop the Government from making a mess of one of this country's vital safety industries.

Mr. Prescott: I think that everyone will agree that this has been a good debate. It has reflected Members' real concerns about change and about the possibility of a public-private partnership, as set out in the Bill, for air navigation services. I welcome all the contributions that have been made to the debate. I have disagreed with some comments and agreed with others; that is inevitable on these occasions. The Government have some differences both with the official Opposition and with the opposition on the Government Benches, but I shall choose to direct myself to the Bill.
The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who spoke from the Opposition Front Bench, talked about a wonderful privatisation programme, of which, as he readily said, the proposal before us is not a part. The history of selling the public assets of the United Kingdom is not something to recommend when dealing with further privatisations. In whatever area, privatisation cost the country billions of pounds. The assets sold off were undervalued, as the Public Accounts Committee has made clear. I would not want to put forward any privatisation proposals of that sort.
I am pleased, however, to support proposals that will allow the development of National Air Traffic Services and introduce measures to enhance air safety, at a time when the volume of air traffic is increasing extremely quickly. It has increased by about 20 per cent. in the past five years. This is clearly a growth industry in which safety is a major consideration, and I think that we all agree that there is a good safety record.
I shall take up some of my hon. Friends' comments about the commitment and promise that "Our skies are not for sale". We did not state in the Labour party's manifesto that there was a commitment to do this or not to do it, but it was said at the general election that after


the decision to take on two years of the financial programme of the previous Administration, the question had to be asked, "What about the privatisation to which the previous Government were committed?"
We took the view that we would not privatise NATS but would pursue a public-private partnership. That was at the heart of the election, and the point was made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is not something that we have sneaked into the House. There was debate, which is a matter of record. It is possible to read exactly what was said at the time.
The proposals that we are discussing are an important part of the Bill, which I am proud to endorse. The Bill will bring improvements to the railways, bus services, and local transport provision. Two key themes are improvements in public transport, which is once again a growth industry after decades of neglect, and an emphasis on the public and private sectors working together for the best overall solution.
Much of the debate, quite properly, has been about safety. I have spent much of my 30 years in the House—I am grateful for the comments that have been made in that regard—dealing with safety issues in all industries. That is a matter of record. Some of my efforts have been successful; others have been less successful. However, it would be most unusual for me to make a proposal that threatened the safety of air navigation. If that is not enough to convince the House, I shall explain why the proposal will make air navigation far safer. Nothing is more important to the Government, or to me personally, than safety in transport.
Everyone who has contributed to the debate, as well as the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, has made it clear that the status quo is not acceptable—that is, that the roles of the operator, which is now responsible both for regulation and for operation, should be separated. The Select Committee said that the status of the CAA with NATS as a subsidiary was not acceptable.
The Committee has been making that recommendation since the late 1980s. I agree with it, but I go further. The Government do not accept that the status quo is good enough for safety. There is a conflict of interest, and a change must be made, which is embodied in the Bill. We also consider that the status quo is not sufficient to meet the long-term investment needs of NATS, which will be the key to maintaining safety, better project management and the ability to grow.
7.15 pm
When we consider the safety record we see that there has been an increase in airprox near misses over the past 10 years. Near misses over those 10 years have increased by almost a third. That is alarming. However, there has been a tremendous growth in air traffic. A fair analysis of safety would mean setting the number of incidents against the growth of aeroplane passenger traffic.
Against that background, it is essential that the new technology and the two-centre approach, which the previous Administration announced, is introduced if we are to improve safety. Swanwick has been delayed for five years, it is £400 million or £500 million over budget and it has still not been implemented. Perhaps someone should have been concerned to ensure that the project was

properly financed and properly implemented. It might have played a part in reducing the number of airprox incidents that we are now seeing. The amount of money that is invested in safety is just as important as skills and equipment.
The issue is whether NATS can secure sufficient long-term investment and handle it efficiently. I have examined the record, and it is my judgment that it has not done so. We must change that. In that context, the status quo is not satisfactory.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: The Deputy Prime Minister has mentioned three times already that there has been a huge growth in air transport in this country. Does he agree that if terminal 5 is allowed to go ahead, there will be a huge growth in movements in and out of Heathrow?

Mr. Prescott: I have to deal with appeals on such planning issues, so I cannot make any comments now. The hon. Lady will have to wait until the report comes out.
There has been considerable debate about traffic using privately run or publicly NATS-controlled airports. The argument has not greatly benefited the House, but at the same time it has been a good debate. NATS controls much more air traffic than anyone else, whether in terms of movements or of numbers of passengers, but the fact that it is larger does not necessarily mean that it is safer.
Private sector companies, or non-NATS organisations, in Humberside, for example—the airport in my area—enable Concordes to land. Airbuses and jumbo jets land at Luton. Whether controllers are dealing with 10 or 400 people or with a jumbo or a small jet, I am sure that there is equal concern for safety. I think that that has emerged during the debate. The argument that private air traffic controllers are less safe than public controllers in NATS has been rejected.
It has not emerged from the debate that NATS bids for private contracts. Presumably it does so with a profit motive. The assumption that profit undermines safety is not proven. Our experience in visiting airports is that it does not. All the discussion in the world, and all the cockpits that my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) has visited, do not change that essential point. As for chats with pilots—I do not disagree with the idea that pilots are important people to take into account—I can recall pilots saying, "Don't privatise BAA; it will be less safe."

Mr. Redwood: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give way?

Mr. Prescott: Not now. I apologise. I am dealing with the real opposition.
When I was talking to a pilot about these matters, he admitted that safety had improved since the privatisation of BAA. I do not want to advance the argument that private is good and public is bad, or vice versa. I want to come to a judgment on whether we are introducing measures to make the industry safer.
The new clauses and amendments focus on whether a different company structure can achieve that objective. We have made it clear that we seek to introduce the public-private approach. New clauses 35 to 37 and new


clause 26 provide different options. Full privatisation is represented by new clause 26. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh (Dr. Strang) seeks to retain a Companies Act company. The NAV Canada solution means that shares in the company cannot be sold, but there is a sale to a non-profit company. No shares are involved. So we are being offered a state corporation, a sort of trust corporation and the full privatisation that I have mentioned.
I am confused when it comes to how Members will vote for all these propositions, unless it all amounts to a belt-and-braces job and, if they lose on the first one, they will move on to the next. I hope that they will not touch the third one.
The Government believe in a public-private partnership. That is not a privatised approach but it is a different form of the public-private approach. It involves shares in the private sector, and is a different form of the public-private partnership from the one that I have developed for the London underground. There are horses for courses. It is a different partnership from the one I have developed for the channel tunnel rail link, which I had to rescue from the terrible mess created by the previous Administration. All those measures involved £20 billion.
Those who said that the money would come from telecoms include, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike). However, that money has been spent at least five or six times already. Nobody needs to be convinced that Labour knows how to spend money; the difficulty is in pointing out where we raise the money that we spend. There is a history to that argument.
The £20 billion has been raised from an industry that has an income flow, which means that there is less pressure on the public sector to raise revenue or capital for hospitals and schools. The £500 million that would be raised from the sale of NATS is equivalent to putting a pound on pensions. Judgments must be made about public expenditure priorities and the Government will take such considerations into account in their public expenditure programmes.

Mr. Redwood: It is generous of the Deputy Prime Minister to let me intrude on private grief. He would agree that the Treasury would be over-generous if it offered £5 notes for £1—it might mean that there was an election coming up—but when the Government offer to pass on control of £1.5 billion of assets for £300 million, are they not offering £5 notes for £1? Those are the figures that the Government have supplied. Is not the sale of those assets, over the heads of British management and employees and probably to a foreign stakeholder or shareholder, a big slap in the face for those British managers and workers?

Mr. Prescott: If the hon. Gentleman has read our response to the Select Committee report or our letters to the Committee, he will know that that is complete nonsense. The argument about those figures concerns a judgment about debt and equity, which we have dealt with before. I shall take no lectures from the hon. Gentleman, who was a member of the Government who, as the Public Accounts Committee has pointed out, undersold most of

our assets by billions of pounds. He now has the audacity to lecture us about selling off assets. Whatever the intention of the previous Administration, those sales were hardly good for the taxpayer.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Prescott: No, I must make progress.

Mr. Jenkin: rose—

Mr. Prescott: Sit down.
A public-private partnership, or any of the alternatives, must satisfy the Government's criteria. First, we want to separate NATS operation from CAA regulation—there seems to be agreement on that in the House—not only to maintain safety but to enhance it. I shall return to that point. We also want to maintain the national security objective, to secure the long-term investment that I have referred to, to introduce stability to the investment programme and to get better project management skills.
I have heard the talk about Rover's management skills. Considering the problems that I inherited as Secretary of State, it is no wonder that in some of our public sector industries, projects are not completed on time and are over budget by billions of pounds. It was estimated that the two centres for NATS would cost about £600 million, but they will now cost us over £1 billion and the project is five years late. I could give several examples that demonstrate that although the public sector culture is plainly good for safety, the public sector is not too good at handling projects. The taxpayer has to make up any difference—to the tune of £1.5 billion in the case of the Jubilee line extension.
A public-private partnership for London docklands light rail is on time, is as efficient as it is effective and imposes no extra cost on the taxpayer. We must take such examples into account when considering the quality of management. I have been a defender of the public sector all my life, but it costs a great deal more than the private sector, and we must ask why. Various explanations have been given, but I am faced with the practicalities.
When considering a public-private partnership, we decided on a trade sale, to which the hon. Member for North Essex referred, to a strategic partner. The hon. Gentleman did not seem to think that that was a good idea. So why did the Conservative Government sell Rover to BMW for £1? When English, Welsh and Scottish railways came along, there were three companies to be sold. The American buyer said that it would only buy the lot. Not only did the Conservative Government give it the lot, but they gave it £250 million to take it away. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There are many private conversations taking place in the Chamber. The right hon. Gentleman is addressing the House, so hon. Members should listen to what he has to say.

Mr. Prescott: I certainly believe and intend to show that a public-private partnership with a strategic partner will provide a strong framework of public accountability.

Mr. Jenkin: May I point out that if the right hon. Gentleman chose to pursue the NAV Canada proposal,


the Government would still receive a capital receipt for the sale of the business. NAV Canada raised a large sum in bonds to pay for the business, so the public sector still received a capital receipt.

Mr. Prescott: I hear that defence, but my point was that although a strategic partner was involved, the business was sold to one operator. There are several examples of that, so I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman cannot accept the idea of a strategic partner. Indeed, his proposal would not allow for that: the hon. Gentleman wants to float shares in a full privatisation. That is a straightforward position, and it is argued that that is best for the taxpayer, but I am bound to say that the record of privatisations does not bear that out.
New clause 35, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), makes it clear that we should take the option of state ownership. It would permit the separation of the provision of a service from its regulation, but would do little else. It would retain the service in the state sector and would therefore lead to problems in acquiring public investment. The service would have to apply for the Treasury for resources. There would also be all the difficulties of being unable to get a programme established for more than two or three years. The service would have to compete with others requiring public expenditure.
Those problems have undermined the public sector in this country. Inadequate finance for the quality of service required is a reason why the quality of public services has got worse. We are desperately seeking to change that. The public sector suffers from stop-go investment, as I suggested, and that has dogged most of the transport industry for a long time.
Swanwick is a classic example of a project that is over budget, over time and, frankly, will not even produce the facility that we want. Indeed, it is dogged by concerns of one form or another. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Ms Osborne) told us about the two-centre operation, pointing out that a privatised service might not retain two centres.
I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend had to say, and she made a powerful case tonight for what she has been advocating for a long time. There is no disagreement between us on the matter. In fact, the Prime Minister made it clear at the Dispatch Box that he accepted the spirit of her amendment and that her proposals would be written into the strategic agreement. The strategic partner would be required by the Government to build the second centre. The proposal would involve a golden share, directors and articles of association, as we pointed out to the Select Committee. I understand the fears expressed by my hon. Friend, and the concern about the matter in Scotland. On behalf of the Government, I accept her amendment.

Ms Osborne: I just want to be absolutely sure about this. Is my right hon. Friend saying that he unequivocally accepts my amendment and that it will be added to the Bill?

Mr. Prescott: Yes, my hon. Friend has re-emphasised my point. Her amendment will become a Government amendment, so I hope that that does not cause her embarrassment.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh spoke to new clause 36. The new clause and the amendments associated with it seek to achieve a

different end from the Government's. They would involve the separation to which I referred, and would establish a strategic partner, but restrict it to being a not-for-profit company. That is a bit like Virgin saying that it would run the lottery on a not-for-profit basis—I shall leave aside the fact that my right hon. Friend would want a bit of profit for investment and equity.
My right hon. Friend cited NAV Canada as a working example of that model. That suffers most of the drawbacks of a state-owned option. A letter sent to us makes it clear that the assets were sold by the state, and there is no accountability. Although the agreements and safety regulations do not say so, NAV Canada is privatised. All the assets that were owned by the state, and which in all other countries are still owned by the state, have been sold to a trust company. People have been appointed from the unions and other companies to sit on its board, but the trust company runs the service. There is no accountability to the Government, or Government ownership. Agreements have to be struck about defence—an issue that I should have thought would be of some concern to the House. Such an arrangement does not provide the proper degree of accountability; I believe that there must be accountability, which is why we are writing it into the process.

Dr. Strang: At a meeting a week or so ago, we heard an address by the trade union director of NAV Canada, who explicitly stated that NAV Canada was answerable to the relevant Minister.

Mr. Prescott: That Minister can issue directions along the lines of, "On safety, you must do this." However, NAV Canada does not raise money from the Government; it raises it from the private sector and is free to do so. In addition, it can do whatever it likes in respect of prices and profits—the Government have no control over those aspects. My point is that the arrangement brings all the problems that are associated with many trusts.
I remember that when I first entered Parliament in the 1970s, there were problems with the Merseyside docks, then controlled by a trust. People got hold of it, forced down the prices and the brave Selsdon men would not allow it to be rescued. Eventually, they were forced to mount a rescue. That trust arrangement had failed to provide adequate investment or proper accountability to Government. That would not be a satisfactory way to deal with air traffic control, with all its defence implications and investment requirements; nor would such an arrangement allow the business to invest abroad.
I always take the cost-plus approach to public investment. An arrangement such as the one proposed could not be controlled; it could set its own prices and exploit its monopoly position—unaccountable to anyone, it would simply pass on all the costs. That is not the sort of culture that will produce the efficiency and investment that the modern aviation industry needs.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Do my right hon. Friend's comments about the lack of accountability of trust bodies apply to registered social landlords, to whom the Government propose to transfer council housing?

Mr. Prescott: There are all sorts of trusts, including hospital trusts. There are always problems to be


addressed. My point is that, while a trust body could raise the capital to make the necessary investment, it could not provide the sort of flexibility, management and efficiency that we want. Furthermore, I believe that the Government should have some control and that the industry should be accountable. We can argue about percentages—49 per cent., or whatever it might be—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is a small matter in the circumstances, but would the right hon. Gentleman please face the Chair?

Mr. Prescott: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
We do not accept that a public-private partnership would jeopardise safety. The airline operators told the Select Committee that the Government's proposals would enhance aviation safety and they stated why that was. People say that the airline operators would say that, but I cannot accept that the 13 major UK airline operators are indifferent to whether or not an aeroplane crashes, or to their safety record. To say that they are is silly and dangerous and undermines the very concept of safety.
Safety regulation will remain firmly in the public sector in a reformed Civil Aviation Authority. We shall ensure that we remain the safest providers of air traffic control services in the world. There was some doubt about whether such an approach would be effective, but the CAA is a public body and I thought that everyone accepted that safety should rest with a public body, not with the body that is responsible for operations. Therefore, the CAA has to do the job.
Safety is of paramount importance, which is why we have made it clear that the CAA is to set minimum standards. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) said, there are higher standards than those enforced by the CAA. However, we have made it clear that all the standards that currently apply will continue to do so. Furthermore, we have transferred safety from the operating body to the public body—the Select Committee asked for that major change and we have made it. We have done more, by making it absolutely clear to the companies involved they cannot provide air traffic control services unless the CAA safety regulation group is satisfied that they can do so safely.
The CAA will continue to conduct regular inspections and audits. The competence and medical fitness of all operators will be tested annually. Procedures and equipment used by controllers must be approved by the CAA, and it will control maximum working hours. A company will not be able to make controllers work longer, because their hours will continue to be controlled by regulation—nothing will change. Given the growth in the industry, it is likely that more air traffic controllers will be required in future. The point is that controllers cannot be made to work more hours. The type of equipment used will be set down in the licence and controlled by the CAA. Therefore, nothing changes in respect of controllers and their equipment.
We met trade union representatives and discussed all those matters. Let me make it clear: the unions did not endorse our proposal and I did not ask them to. However, we have adopted important safety measures, continued existing measures and then gone further, in response to

union concerns. Safety will be mentioned in the strategic partnership agreement; a NATS board director appointed by the Government will have specific responsibility for safety; and a safety monitoring committee will be established, chaired by a Government-appointed director. The safety management system that includes elements that exceed statutory minimum requirements will remain in place. The CAA's audit arrangements will be extended to ensure that there is an annual audit of safety management. Finally, training and development standards will be improved. Those are the safety concerns of people in the industry and we have met those concerns. I have not asked the unions to endorse the Government's proposal for a public-private partnership. However, the unions have endorsed those safety improvements.
We have a gold-plated arrangement. First, we have separated the public safety regulator from the service operator, as everyone wants us to do. Secondly, we have strengthened the strategic partnership agreement and the articles of association. Thirdly, the Government will appoint to the board directors who have specific responsibility for safety. By any stretch of the imagination, those measures represent an improvement on current safety standards. I do not accept that safety will be weakened, even though we can argue about how far we should go to improve it. The Bill will ensure far better safety standards than I inherited and than were prevalent when I started with the public-private partnership.

Mr. Dalyell: Given my right hon. Friend's comments of the past five minutes, how come he has failed to persuade IPMS and BALPA?

Mr. Prescott: They were the ones that argued that BAA should not be privatised, saying that it would be less safe, but they changed their minds. I had to argue the Government's case for this PPP, but I listened carefully to workers and operators in the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) mentioned the fishing industry. When we tried to improve safety in that industry, those who opposed our measures most fiercely were the fishermen. They gave us all sorts of reasons why they did not believe in it—for example, that it would cost a lot more. However, on safety we have to do what is right. That is the obligation that I have accepted and I can live with its being unpopular, just as I can live with leaving a safer system than I inherited.
I have heard a lot of tosh about the public and private sectors. Do hon. Members feel less safe when they get on board a private-sector aeroplane than they did when British Airways was a public company? When that airline was publicly owned, did they choose it because they believed it was safe? Perhaps they are the sort of people who felt better on reading the old local authority notices that said, "This is a nuclear-free area." It is a load of nonsense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Come over here."] The Conservatives invite me to cross the Floor, but I am just trying to make a point within the context of the amendments.
We have been told to remember Paddington, but I remember King's Cross and Clapham—public sector disasters. Safety was not better under the public sector in that industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come on over."] I shall present the arguments and state our priorities as I think


best. I have heard a lot about safety, but no one has said anything about the safety improvements. A lot of tosh has been said about the public and private sectors; my response is to cite the example of the railways. I have never accepted "public good, private bad," or "private good, public bad." I believe that a balance has to be struck so that we can get the best from both, and a public-private partnership is designed to do exactly that. That is what the Bill will achieve.
The Tories' alternative is privatisation—they have made that absolutely clear. They do not want there to be any control or accountability; they simply want to sell the operation for the best possible price. They are indifferent to the safety, efficiency or effectiveness of the industry. We utterly reject such an approach. We shall retain shares through the public-private partnership because we believe that that will provide one form of accountability. That accountability is also expressed in the articles of association, the strategic partnership agreement, a strict operating licence, the continuing Government and employee shareholding, and the appointment of Government directors with a veto in respect of key issues such as safety, major investment and national security.
As I have heard a bit about national security, I might add that the annual report of the Joint Air Navigation Services Council—the body that brings together the CAA, NATS and the Ministry of Defence—which has just come out, says of the Government's proposals:
the Council believes they will preserve the successful civil/military relationship that currently exists between NATS and the MOD and ensure that air traffic services are sustained on a joint and integrated basis …
I refer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh that report of the bodies that have responsibility for defence and national security, which is the subject of the next debate.
We have put into the Bill many checks and controls. I have made my points about safety. I believe that it is absolutely clear that we can enhance the safety of the system. I have made it clear that I accept amendment No. 454 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. That is right; we shall be writing the proposal into the Bill.
We said from the beginning that we would listen to what was said on the changes. Governments cannot be arrogant and ignore matters; they have to make their case in the House. We have made it clear from the beginning that the changes constitute a public-private partnership, and that the two-centre model may be written into the Bill—we have listened on that and accepted it. We have increased and enhanced safety, as requested by the trade unions, after months of negotiation.
All that makes for a good Bill. All that, in my mind, produces a public-private partnership that will meet the needs of the country and the investment requirements of civil aviation, which will be safer, more accountable and over which the Government will have considerable influence and control. Above all, that will provide safe and sustained investment. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Dunwoody: NATS has no comparison in the private sector. Air traffic controllers do not compete against one another for the control of aircraft—they co-operate. The men and women working in the sector are absolutely certain that the Government's proposal is

not the way forward. We believe, as the Transport Sub-Committee pointed out, that there are various ways in which that paying service, which has always been able to return money to the public sector, could operate safely and effectively either as a public corporation or as a trust.
I hope that every Member will decide that they must live with their consciences on the quality of the votes that they cast tonight, and I hope that they will bear that in mind.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 99, Noes 307.

Division No. 184]
[7.42 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Baker, Norman
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Ballard, Jackie
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Barnes, Harry
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Beggs, Roy


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Kirkwood, Archy


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Lepper, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Brake, Tom
Livingstone, Ken


Brand, Dr Peter
Livsey, Richard


Breed, Colin
Llwyd, Elfyn


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McDonnell, John


Burnett, John
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Burstow, Paul
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Marek, Dr John



Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Canavan, Dennis
Moore, Michael


Chaytor, David
Oaten, Mark


Chidgey, David
Öpik, Lembit


Clapham, Michael
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Clwyd, Ann
Prosser, Gwyn


Connarty, Michael
Rendel, David


Corbyn, Jeremy
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Cotter, Brian
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Salter, Martin


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Sanders, Adrian


Dalyell, Tam
Shepherd, Richard


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Davidson, Ian
Skinner, Dennis


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Dismore, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Dobbin, Jim
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Donohoe, Brian H
Stunell, Andrew


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Swinney, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Fearn, Ronnie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Flynn, Paul
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tyler, Paul


Fyfe, Maria
Wareing, Robert N


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Webb, Steve


Gidley, Ms Sandra
Welsh, Andrew


Godman, Dr Norman A
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Golding, Mrs Llin
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Willis, Phil


Gorrie, Donald
Winnick, David


Harris, Dr Evan


Harvey, Nick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Mr. Bill Michie and


Hopkins, Kelvin
Mr. Mike Wood.



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Allen, Graham


Ainger, Nick
Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)


Alexander, Douglas
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary





Ashton, Joe
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)


Atkins, Charlotte
Edwards, Huw


Banks, Tony
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Battle, John
Ennis, Jeff


Bayley, Hugh
Fisher, Mark


Beard, Nigel
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Flint, Caroline


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Follett, Barbara


Bermingham, Gerald
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Berry, Roger
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Best, Harold
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Betts, Clive
Foulkes, George


Blackman, Liz
Galbraith, Sam


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Gapes, Mike


Blears, Ms Hazel
Gardiner, Barry


Blizzard, Bob
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Gibson, Dr Ian


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Borrow, David
Goggins, Paul


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bradshaw, Ben
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Grocott, Bruce



Gunnell, John


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Browne, Desmond
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Burden, Richard
Hanson, David


Burgon, Colin
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Butler, Mrs Christine
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Healey, John


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Hepburn, Stephen


Cann, Jamie
Heppell, John


Caplin, Ivor
Hesford, Stephen


Casale, Roger
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cawsey, Ian
Hill, Keith


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Church, Ms Judith
Hoey, Kate


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hood, Jimmy



Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Howells, Dr Kim


Coaker, Vernon
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Colman, Tony
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hurst, Alan


Cooper, Yvette
Hutton, John


Corbett, Robin
Iddon, Dr Brian


Corston, Jean
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cox, Tom
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Cranston, Ross
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Crausby, David
Jenkins, Brian


Cummings, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Darvill, Keith
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dawson, Hilton
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Denham, John
Kemp, Fraser


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Doran, Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Dowd, Jim
Kidney, David




King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Primarolo, Dawn


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Leslie, Christopher
Rammell, Bill


Levitt, Tom
Raynsford, Nick


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Linton, Martin
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lock, David
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


Love, Andrew
Rooney, Terry


McAvoy, Thomas
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rowlands, Ted


McDonagh, Siobhain
Roy, Frank


Macdonald, Calum
Ruane, Chris


McFall, John
Ruddock, Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ryan, Ms Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Sarwar, Mohammad


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sawford, Phil


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sedgemore, Brian


McLeish, Henry
Sheerman, Barry


McNulty, Tony
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


MacShane, Denis
Shipley, Ms Debra


Mactaggart, Fiona
Singh, Marsha


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Snape, Peter


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Southworth, Ms Helen


Maxton, John
Spellar, John


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Squire, Ms Rachel


Merron, Gillian


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morley, Elliot
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela



Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mudie, George
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mullin, Chris
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Tipping, Paddy


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Todd, Mark


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Touhig, Don


Norris, Dan
Trickett, Jon


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Truswell, Paul


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


O'Hara, Eddie
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Olner, Bill
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Neill, Martin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Tynan, Bill


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Vaz, Keith


Palmer, Dr Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Pearson, Ian
Watts, David


Pendry, Tom
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Perham, Ms Linda
Wicks, Malcolm


Pickthall, Colin
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Plaskitt, James


Pollard, Kerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Pond, Chris
Wills, Michael


Pope, Greg
Wilson, Brian


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Woolas, Phil


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Worthington, Tony





Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Wyatt, Derek
Mr. David Clelland.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 36

TRANSFER TO BE TO NOT FOR PROFIT COMPANY

'.—(1) Any property, rights or liabilities shall only be transferred under a transfer scheme to a not for profit company.

(2) The transfer of property, rights or liabilities under a transfer scheme may be by such means, including sale or lease, and on such terms as the Secretary of State, with the approval of the Treasury, may determine.

(3) A transfer scheme shall not come into force unless a draft of the scheme has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(4) A not for profit company to which any property, rights or liabilities have been transferred under a transfer scheme shall not—

(a) issue any shares or share rights; or
(b) pay any dividend or profits to its members.

(5) For purposes of this Part, "not for profit company" means a company—

(a) which has been formed and registered as a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act 1985 or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986; and
(b) the membership of which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State includes those who are representative of providers, employees and users of aviation, air travel, air navigation and related services.'.—[Dr. Strang.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 308.

Division No. 185]
[7.55 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Allan, Richard
Burnett, John


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Burstow, Paul


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Butterfill, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cable, Dr Vincent


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Baker, Norman
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Ballard, Jackie


Barnes, Harry
Chaytor, David


Beggs, Roy
Chidgey, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Chope, Christopher


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clappison, James


Bercow, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Blunt, Crispin


Body, Sir Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Clwyd, Ann


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Collins, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Connarty, Michael


Brady, Graham
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brake, Tom
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Brand, Dr Peter
Cotter, Brian


Brazier, Julian
Cran, James


Breed, Colin
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dalyell, Tam

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 37

PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL OF TRANSFER SCHEME

'.—(1) A transfer scheme made by the CAA or the Secretary of State shall not come into force unless it has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament passed on a motion moved by or on behalf of the Secretary of State.

(2) No such motion shall be moved by or on behalf of the Secretary of State unless at least seven days before the date on which the motion is to be debated by either House of Parliament he has caused a report to be laid before both Houses which—

(a) sets out the progress which has been made in respect of any project for the development of facilities connected with national air traffic services which was commissioned by the transferor before the date on which this Act received Royal Assent; and
(b) confirms that the Treasury have given their consent to the proposed transfer.'.—[Mr. Dalyell]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Phil Hope: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. There appears to be a delay in the Lobbies; could the reason for it be investigated?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should leave me to worry about such matters.

The House having divided: Ayes 244, Noes 310.

Division No. 185]
[7.55 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Allan, Richard
Burnett, John


Amess, David
Burns, Simon


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Burstow, Paul


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Butterfill, John


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cable, Dr Vincent


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Baker, Norman
Cash, William


Baldry, Tony
Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)


Ballard, Jackie


Barnes, Harry
Chaytor, David


Beggs, Roy
Chidgey, David


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Chope, Christopher


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Clapham, Michael


Bennett, Andrew F
Clappison, James


Bercow, John
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Blunt, Crispin


Body, Sir Richard
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Boswell, Tim
Clwyd, Ann


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Collins, Tim


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Connarty, Michael


Brady, Graham
Corbyn, Jeremy


Brake, Tom
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Brand, Dr Peter
Cotter, Brian


Brazier, Julian
Cran, James


Breed, Colin
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Dalyell, Tam



Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Leigh, Edward


Davidson, Ian
Lepper, David


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Letwin, Oliver


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Day, Stephen
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lidington, David


Dismore, Andrew
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dobbin, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Donohoe, Brian H
Livsey, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Duncan, Alan
Llwyd, Elfyn


Duncan Smith, Iain
Luff, Peter


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
McDonnell, John


Evans, Nigel
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Faber, David
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Fabricant, Michael
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fallon, Michael
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Fearn, Ronnie
McLoughlin, Patrick


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Madel, Sir David


Flight, Howard
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Flynn, Paul
Major, Rt Hon John


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Malins, Humfrey


Foster, Don (Bath)
Maples, John


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marek, Dr John


Fox, Dr Liam
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Fraser, Christopher
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Fyfe, Maria
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Garnier, Edward
May, Mrs Theresa


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Gibb, Nick
Moore, Michael


Gidley, Ms Sandra
Moss, Malcolm


Gill, Christopher
Nicholls, Patrick


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Norman, Archie


Godman, Dr Norman A
Oaten, Mark


Golding, Mrs Llin
O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
Öpik, Lembit


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Ottaway, Richard


Gorrie, Donald
Page, Richard


Gray, James
Paice, James


Green, Damian
Paterson, Owen


Greenway, John
Pickles, Eric


Gummer, Rt Hon John
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hague, Rt Hon William
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Prior, David


Hammond, Philip
Prosser, Gwyn


Harris, Dr Evan
Randall, John


Harvey, Nick
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hawkins, Nick
Rendel, David


Hayes, John
Robathan, Andrew


Heald, Oliver
Robertson, Laurence


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward
Ruffley, David


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Salter, Martin


Hopkins, Kelvin
Sanders, Adrian


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Shepherd, Richard


Hunter, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Skinner, Dennis


Jenkin, Bernard
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Soames, Nicholas


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
Spelman, Mrs Caroline



Spicer, Sir Michael


Key, Robert
Spring, Richard


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kirkwood, Archy
Steen, Anthony


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Stevenson, George


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Lansley, Andrew
Streeter, Gary





Stunell, Andrew
Webb, Steve


Swayne, Desmond
Wells, Bowen


Swinney, John
Welsh, Andrew


Syms, Robert
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Whittingdale, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Wilkinson, John


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Willetts, David


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Townend, John
Willis, Phil


Tredinnick, David
Wilshire, David


Trend, Michael
Winnick, David


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tyler, Paul
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tyrie, Andrew
Yeo, Tim


Viggers, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Walter, Robert


Wardle, Charles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wareing, Robert N
Mr. Bill Michie and


Waterson, Nigel
Mr. Mike Wood.



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Ainger, Nick
Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Alexander, Douglas
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Allen, Graham
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coaker, Vernon


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Coffey, Ms Ann


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Coleman, Iain


Ashton, Joe
Colman, Tony


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Atkins, Charlotte
Cooper, Yvette


Banks, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Battle, John
Corston, Jean


Bayley, Hugh
Cousins, Jim


Beard, Nigel
Cox, Tom


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cranston, Ross


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Crausby, David


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Cummings, John


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Berry, Roger


Best, Harold
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Betts, Clive
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Blackman, Liz
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Darvill, Keith


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Blizzard, Bob
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Dawson, Hilton


Borrow, David
Denham, John


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Doran, Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Dowd, Jim


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)



Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Edwards, Huw


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Browne, Desmond
Ennis, Jeff


Burden, Richard
Fisher, Mark


Burgon, Colin
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Butler, Mrs Christine
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Flint, Caroline


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Follett, Barbara


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Caplin, Ivor
Foulkes, George


Casale, Roger
Galbraith, Sam


Cawsey, Ian
Gapes, Mike


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Gardiner, Barry


Church, Ms Judith
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda



Goggins, Paul




Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McLeish, Henry


Grocott, Bruce
McNulty, Tony


Gunnell, John
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWalter, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McWilliam, John


Hanson, David
Mallaber, Judy


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Healey, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Martlew, Eric


Hepburn, Stephen
Maxton, John


Heppell, John
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hesford, Stephen
Merron, Gillian


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hill, Keith
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Miller, Andrew


Hoey, Kate
Moffatt, Laura


Home Robertson, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hood, Jimmy
Moran, Ms Margaret


Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Hope, Phil
Morley, Elliot


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Howells, Dr Kim
Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)


Hoyle, Lindsay


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mudie, George


Hurst, Alan
Mullin, Chris


Hutton, John
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Illsley, Eric
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Norris, Dan


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Hara, Eddie


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pearson, Ian


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Pendry, Tom


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Perham, Ms Linda


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pickthall, Colin


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Plaskitt, James


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Pollard, Kerry


Kemp, Fraser
Pond, Chris


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pope, Greg


Khabra, Piara S
Pound, Stephen


Kidney, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Purchase, Ken


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Quinn, Lawrie


Leslie, Christopher
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Levitt, Tom
Rammell, Bill


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Raynsford, Nick


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Linton, Martin
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lock, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Love, Andrew
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooney, Terry


McCabe, Steve
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rowlands, Ted


McDonagh, Siobhain
Roy, Frank


Macdonald, Calum
Ruane, Chris


McFall, John
Ruddock, Joan


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ryan, Ms Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Sarwar, Mohammad





Sawford, Phil
Timms, Stephen


Sedgemore, Brian
Tipping, Paddy


Sheerman, Barry
Todd, Mark


Shipley, Ms Debra
Touhig, Don


Singh, Marsha
Trickett, Jon


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Truswell, Paul


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverth'ton SE)


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Snape, Peter
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Soley, Clive
Tynan, Bill


Southworth, Ms Helen
Vaz, Keith


Spellar, John
Ward, Ms Claire


Squire, Ms Rachel
Watts, David


Starkey, Dr Phyllis
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Steinberg, Gerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Stinchcombe, Paul
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wills, Michael


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Wilson, Brian


Stringer, Graham
Woolas, Phil


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Worthington, Tony


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)



Wyatt, Derek


Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Mr. David Clelland.

Division No. 186]
[8.13 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Allan, Richard
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Amess, David
Evans, Nigel


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Faber, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fabricant, Michael


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Fallon, Michael


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fearn, Ronnie


Baker, Norman
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Baldry, Tony
Flight, Howard


Ballard, Jackie
Flynn, Paul


Barnes, Harry
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Beggs, Roy
Foster, Don (Bath)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bennett, Andrew F
Fox, Dr Liam


Bercow, John
Fraser, Christopher


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fyfe, Maria


Blunt, Crispin
Garnier, Edward


Body, Sir Richard
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Boswell, Tim
Gibb, Nick


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Gidley, Ms Sandra


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gill, Christopher


Brady, Graham
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Brake, Tom
Godman, Dr Norman A


Brand, Dr Peter
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brazier, Julian
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Breed, Colin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorrie, Donald


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Gray, James


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Green, Damian


Burnett, John
Greenway, John


Burns, Simon
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Burstow, Paul
Hague, Rt Hon William


Butterfill, John
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Cable, Dr Vincent
Hammond, Philip


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Harris, Dr Evan



Harvey, Nick


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hayes, John



Heald, Oliver


Chaytor, David
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Chidgey, David
Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Chope, Christopher
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Clapham, Michael
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Clappison, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)
Hopkins, Kelvin


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howard, Rt Hon Michael



Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Clwyd, Ann
Hunter, Andrew


Collins, Tim
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Connarty, Michael
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Jenkin, Bernard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Cotter, Brian
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Cran, James
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Curry, Rt Hon David
Key, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Kirkwood, Archy


Davidson, Ian
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Lansley, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Leigh, Edward


Dean, Mrs Janet
Lepper, David


Dobbin, Jim
Letwin, Oliver


Donohoe, Brian H
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Duncan, Alan
Lidington, David


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter





Livingstone, Ken
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Livsey, Richard
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Luff, Peter
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Soames, Nicholas


McDonnell, John
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Sir Michael


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Steen, Anthony


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Stevenson, George


McLoughlin, Patrick
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Madel, Sir David
Streeter, Gary


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Stunell, Andrew


Major, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


Malins, Humfrey
Swinney, John


Maples, John
Syms, Robert


Marek, Dr John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Moore, Michael
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Townend, John


Moss, Malcolm
Tredinnick, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Norman, Archie
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Oaten, Mark
Tyler, Paul


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Tyrie, Andrew


Öpik, Lembit
Viggers, Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Walter, Robert


Page, Richard
Wareing, Robert N


Paice, James
Waterson, Nigel


Paterson, Owen
Webb, Steve


Pickles, Eric
Wells, Bowen


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Welsh, Andrew


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Prior, David
Whittingdale, John


Prosser, Gwyn
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Randall, John
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Wilkinson, John


Rendel, David
Willetts, David


Robathan, Andrew
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Robertson, Laurence
Willis, Phil


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wilshire, David


Ruffley, David
Winnick, David


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


St Aubyn, Nick
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Salter, Martin
Yeo, Tim


Sanders, Adrian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Sayeed, Jonathan


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shepherd, Richard
Mr. Bill Michie and


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Mike Wood.



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Berry, Roger


Ainger, Nick
Best, Harold


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Betts, Clive


Alexander, Douglas
Blackman, Liz


Allen, Graham
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blizzard, Bob


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Ashton, Joe
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Atherton, Ms Candy
Borrow, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Battle, John
Bradshaw, Ben


Bayley, Hugh
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Beard, Nigel


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Browne, Desmond


Bermingham, Gerald
Burden, Richard




Burgon, Colin
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Hanson, David


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Healey, John


Cann, Jamie
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Caplin, Ivor
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Casale, Roger
Hepburn, Stephen


Cawsey, Ian
Heppell, John


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Hesford, Stephen


Church, Ms Judith
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hill, Keith


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hodge, Ms Margaret



Hoey, Kate


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hood, Jimmy


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hope, Phil


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coaker, Vernon
Howells, Dr Kim


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hoyle, Lindsay


Coleman, Iain
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cooper, Yvette
Hurst, Alan


Corbett, Robin
Hutton, John


Corston, Jean
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cousins, Jim
Illsley, Eric


Cox, Tom
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Cranston, Ross
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Crausby, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cummings, John
Jamieson, David


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Jenkins, Brian



Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Darting, Rt Hon Alistair
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dawson, Hilton
Keeble, Ms Sally


Denham, John
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dismore, Andrew
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Kemp, Fraser


Doran, Frank
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dowd, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kidney, David


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Edwards, Huw
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Ennis, Jeff
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fisher, Mark
Lawrence, Mrs Jackie


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Leslie, Christopher


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Levitt, Tom


Flint, Caroline
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Follett, Barbara
Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Linton, Martin


Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Lock, David


Foulkes, George
Love, Andrew


Galbraith, Sam
McAvoy, Thomas


Gapes, Mike
McCabe, Steve


Gardiner, Barry
McCafferty, Ms Chris


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Gibson, Dr Ian
Macdonald, Calum


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McFall, John


Goggins, Paul
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Grocott, Bruce
McLeish, Henry


Gunnell, John
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mactaggart, Fiona





McWalter, Tony
Roy, Frank


McWilliam, John
Ruane, Chris


Mallaber, Judy
Ruddock, Joan


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Ryan, Ms Joan


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sawford, Phil


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Maxton, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Singh, Marsha


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Snape, Peter


Moran, Ms Margaret
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morley, Elliot
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Steinberg, Gerry



Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mountford, Kali
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Stinchcombe, Paul


Mudie, George
Stoate, Dr Howard


Mullin, Chris
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stringer, Graham


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Norris, Dan


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


O'Hara, Eddie
Temple-Morris, Peter


Olner, Bill
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Neill, Martin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Timms, Stephen


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Tipping, Paddy


Palmer, Dr Nick
Todd, Mark


Pearson, Ian
Trickett, Jon


Pendry, Tom
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pickthall, Cohn
Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Plaskitt, James
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Pollard, Kerry
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pond, Chris
Tynan, Bill


Pope, Greg
Vaz, Keith


Pound, Stephen
Ward, Ms Claire


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Watts, David


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Primarolo, Dawn
Wicks, Malcolm


Purchase, Ken
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Quinn, Lawrie
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Radice, Rt Hon Giles
Wills, Michael


Rammell, Bill
Wilson, Brian


Raynsford, Nick
Woolas, Phil


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Worthington, Tony


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Wyatt, Derek


Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff



Rooney, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Rowlands, Ted
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 5

ORDERS FOR POSSESSION OF AERODROMES, ETC.

'.—(1) This section applies in any time of actual or imminent hostilities or of severe international tension or of great national emergency.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order provide for—

(a) any aerodrome, and
(b) any aircraft, machinery, plant, material or thing found in or on any aerodrome,
to be taken into his possession and used by or for the purposes of the armed forces of the Crown.

(3) An order under this section may, for the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of the order—

(a) provide for the detention of aircraft;
(b) make such other provision as appears to the Secretary of State to be necessary or expedient for securing such detention.

(4) A person must comply with an order under this section notwithstanding any other duty, however arising.

(5) An order under this section may, for the purpose of securing compliance with the provisions of the order, provide for—

(a) persons to be guilty of offences in such circumstances as may be specified in the order;
(b) persons to be liable on conviction of those offences to such penalties as may be so specified.

(6) The power under subsection (5) does not include power—

(a) to provide for offences to be triable only on indictment;
(b) to authorise the imposition, on summary conviction of an offence, of any term of imprisonment or of a fine exceeding the statutory maximum;
(c) to authorise the imposition, on conviction on indictment of an offence, of a term of imprisonment exceeding two years.

(7) Any person who suffers direct injury or loss arising from compliance with an order under this section is entitled to receive compensation from the Secretary of State.

(8) The compensation must be of an amount agreed by the person and the Secretary of State or (in default of agreement) of an amount decided by—

(a) an arbitrator appointed by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors (if the proceedings are to be held in England and Wales),
(b) an arbiter appointed by the Chairman of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors in Scotland (if the proceedings are to be held in Scotland), or
(c) an arbitrator appointed by the Lord Chancellor (if the proceedings are to be held in Northern Ireland).'.—[Mr. Raynsford.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed clause, at end of subsection (4) insert—
'including any duty arising under or by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972 (as amended).'.
New clause 27—Exercise of powers, duties, and functions under Part I—'The powers, duties and functions given or imposed on the Secretary of State or the CAA in sections 1, 2, 38, 49, 80, 81, (Disposal of shareholding in the designated company) and (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.) may be exercised or fulfilled notwithstanding anything contained in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended.'.
Amendment No. 382, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at beginning insert—
'Notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended,'.


Amendment No. 147, in page 1, line 14, at end insert—
'(aa) to ensure that air traffic services are not provided or managed in a manner which might prejudice the national security of the United Kingdom;'.
Amendment No. 383, in clause 2, page 2, line 5, at beginning insert—
'Notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended,'.
Amendment No. 384, in clause 38, page 24, line 14, at beginning insert—
'Notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended.'.
Amendment No. 388, in page 24, line 29, at end insert—
'or
(c) to relinquish the licence;'.
Government amendments Nos. 125 and 126.
Amendment No. 385, in clause 49, page 32, line 1, at beginning insert—
'Notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended,'.
Amendment No. 389, in page 32, line 21, at end insert—
'(5A) The rights accorded to the Crown by the special share under this section shall not be subject to any limitation that may be imposed through the European Communities Act 1972 as amended.'.
Government amendments Nos. 127 and 128.
Amendment No. 386, in clause 80, page 50, line 30, at beginning insert—
'Notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended,'.
Amendment No. 387, in clause 81, page 50, line 33, at beginning insert—
'Notwithstanding anything in the European Communities Act 1972 as subsequently amended,'.
Government amendments Nos. 134, 129, 135 to 138 and 130 to 133.

Mr. Raynsford: The theme that unites the new clauses and amendments is the important subject of national security. The Government have proposed amendments designed to improve the Bill further in respect of national security; the Opposition have proposed amendments that are essentially destructive, and based on false assumptions about the interplay between the PPP and national security. I intend to compare and contrast the proposals, because they highlight important differences between the Government's approach and that of the official Opposition.
8.30 pm
The Bill already contains substantial measures designed to protect the national interest in respect of security. Clause 81 empowers the Secretary of State to give directions to a range of people engaged in aviation and related activities in times of hostilities, severe international tension or great national emergency. Contravention, or failure to comply with a direction, is an offence punishable on indictment by unlimited fines and/or imprisonment.
New clause 5 enables the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument, but not subject to parliamentary procedure, to provide for taking possession of, and using for the purposes of the armed forces, any aerodrome, aircraft, or other things in or around the aerodrome in the event of actual or imminent hostilities, severe international tension or great national emergency. In other words, it is a power not to direct, but to intervene directly.
An order made under that power may include provision to secure compliance with the order, including the detention of aircraft. There is an entitlement to compensation from the Secretary of State in the event of any person suffering direct injury or loss arising from compliance with an order under the new clause. In default of an agreement between the claimant and the Secretary of State, provision is made for the amount to be settled by arbitration.
The new clause allows for greater flexibility in the choice of action that may be taken in times of hostilities. The existing power in clause 81 requires directions to be given to persons as a pre-condition for securing various controls. The new clause allows possession to be taken of aircraft or aerodromes that are the subject of an order without the need first to identify their owners or operators or to give notice. Further, instead of obliging a recipient of a direction to secure that assets are taken into the possession of the Crown, the new clause enables the Crown to take possession directly without relying on the recipient complying.
Amendments Nos. 125 to 133 are consequential to the new clause. Amendments Nos. 134, 137 and 138 substitute the new term "undertaking" for "business" to match the language in Council regulation 2407/92. Amendment No. 135 omits the requirement for prior consent of the Secretary of State or the Director of Public Prosecutions before a prosecution. Amendment No. 136 is consequential in that it applies to the new clause the definitions in clause 82 and provides for the order to be a statutory instrument not subject to parliamentary procedure.
Those are wide-ranging powers that reflect the importance that the Government attach to national security measures. Although the contents of new clause 5 were largely present in the Civil Aviation Act 1982, we have introduced it alongside the direction-making power to ensure that the Government have available to them all the means that they may need to defend the national interest at such times. Those are real, tangible protections. I commend them to the House.
By contrast, the Opposition seek only to fuel fear and suspicion. New clause 27 and the accompanying amendments are simply mischief making. They purport to ensure that the United Kingdom can exercise the functions and powers of transfer and direction under the clauses on the mistaken assumption that what we are proposing would conflict with European law, that European law will develop in such a way as to give rise to such a conflict, or that EU institutions will take over, or replace the Eurocontrol treaty arrangements.
Those matters were debated ad nauseam in Committee. I hope, although not with great confidence, that we will not end up covering the same ground in the same detail tonight. Although I respect and share the enthusiasm for national security that the hon. Member for North Essex


(Mr. Jenkin) demonstrated in Committee, I tired of dealing with his fanciful interpretations of European Community law and his scaremongering on Community competence. Indeed, some of us in the Committee suspected that the mere mention of the term "Eurocontrol" was enough to elicit a Pavlovian reaction from him and some of his hon. Friends. The best interests of UK air traffic services are served not by flogging that particular dead horse, but by putting NATS in a position to benefit from the changes that will and must come about in Europe.
As many of us know from our travels throughout the continent, all is not well in the state of Denmark—or, indeed, in France, Italy, Switzerland and a number of other countries in the core area of Europe—with regard to air traffic management. The reasons are many and complex, but among the most important is the fragmentation of the system, with efficient airspace management being constrained by national boundaries, inflexible allocation of airspace between military and civilian use, and continuing under-investment in the air traffic control capacity needed to meet the relentless growth in air traffic movements.
In Europe, there are three key organisations in air traffic management: Eurocontrol is the European organisation for the safety of air navigation and has 28 members; ECAC—the European civil aviation conference; and the European Union. However, the EU's role is very limited, being confined largely to technical standards and the like.
The Government believe that Europe can and must do better. The air traffic management system is crucial for the economic well-being of the continent generally and for the United Kingdom particularly. We are therefore active members of Eurocontrol. There is broad support for the EU's early accession to Eurocontrol.
The Government are also keen to work with the European Commission on its ideas for "A Single Sky for Europe". We do not necessarily agree with every word in the document, but it represents a genuine attempt to deal with the serious problem that I mentioned earlier, and it offers the United Kingdom a real opportunity to have influence over the way in which those issues will be tackled.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Does the Minister agree that there is all the difference in the world between the facilitation of air traffic by better use of air traffic control systems and a more efficient Eurocontrol and the assumption by the European Union of a common European airspace? Airspace is a fundamental element of national security and of the sovereignty of individual nation states. Will he help the House to understand whether Ministers are clear in their own minds that the way in which the European Commission is developing its outlook on those matters could have a profound impact on our sovereignty and nationhood?

Mr. Raynsford: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I am glad that he shares my view about the importance of continuing to work actively within Eurocontrol to develop the current arrangements and tackle some of the weaknesses. I made it clear that we do not necessarily agree with every element of the concept of the single sky for Europe. However, we want to engage in a constructive dialogue to ensure that there is effective movement across the continent as a whole.
Nothing could be more damaging both for the economic future of Europe—the United Kingdom is intimately connected with that—and for the safety of air traffic and the development of air traffic services than a failure to achieve the necessary integration when that is required, particularly in bearing down on some of the problems and pressure points in current arrangements. We shall therefore approach the matter pragmatically, but positively—engaging in Europe to improve the standard of services.

Mr. Jenkin: To pursue the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson)—I have pressed the Minister on that before—will the Minister acknowledge that if the EU becomes a member of Eurocontrol, it will acquire exclusive competence both externally and internally in all matters to do with airspace policy? When the European Commission joined the general agreement on tariffs and trade, it took control of trade talks. When it joined the international patents organisation, it took control of international patents. When it joins an international airspace management organisation, it will take over competence in airspace matters. That is the purpose of the European Union's single sky programme.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman confirms my fear that we would hear more of his fanciful views on the European Union's aspirations completely to take over and transform the nature of organisations. That is not the agenda. There is a straightforward proposal for the European Union to become a member of Eurocontrol. We are more than happy to discuss and consider that, and we believe that there is a general support for it. The fanciful suggestion that that will involve the total transformation of Eurocontrol's framework and of the role of individual member states is one that is lodged solely in the hon. Gentleman's wilder fantasies.
We are committed believers in Eurocontrol, but it is not beyond improvement. Indeed, the problems that we face in Europe today suggest strongly that that is the case. We are keen to see the organisation's regulatory role made quite separate from its service provision arm. Therefore, in the coming year, we shall also be working hard to secure change.
In Committee, the hon. Member for North Essex suggested that our aims were somehow at variance with Community law and Community policy, both current and prospective. The UK is a member of the European Community and bound by its treaties, legislation and case law. The Secretary of State inevitably will be bound to exercise the functions and other powers highlighted by the amendments and the new clause—and any other powers in the Bill—so as not to be inconsistent with Community law. We are satisfied that our proposals are not inconsistent with those obligations and that law.

Mr. William Cash: Would the Minister explain why the new clause refers to duty rather than function?

Mr. Raynsford: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to our new clause 5, or the new clause tabled by the Opposition?

Mr. Cash: I am referring to subsection (4) of new clause 5. It says—

Mr. Raynsford: I am aware of what it says.

Mr. Cash: The Minister is not aware of anything else by the sound of it.

Mr. Raynsford: I do not share the hon. Gentleman's European fantasies. The new clause states:
A person must comply with an order under the section notwithstanding any other duty, however arising.
That provision is extremely important, and is necessary to ensure that, in times of emergency, the Government can act.
The hon. Gentleman will recognise that it would be difficult if another party were to prevent the Secretary of State from taking control of assets, such as an aerodrome or aircraft, by threatening legal action under whatever pretext. He will undoubtedly see a European dimension, but this is drafted for far wider purposes—to ensure that there is the power for the Secretary of State to act in these specific circumstances without the risk of legal challenge.

Mr. Cash: I asked the Minister a simple question. Why does the word duty appear, and not function? In addition, has he read the title on the provisions on a common foreign and security policy in the Amsterdam treaty, which his Government brought into effect?

Mr. Raynsford: I feared that we would get into this kind of detailed textual analysis. The explanation that I gave was full and straightforward. We are creating a power to enable the Secretary of State to act effectively in national emergencies without the risk of challenge. That is the purpose of the proposal. There is no hidden European subtext.

Sir Robert Smith: Where did the concept of a great national emergency come from? Has that been defined in previous legislation?

Mr. Raynsford: It appears in clause 81 of this Bill. New clause 5 is designed to mirror clause 81, which gave the power to issue directions. New clause 5 gives the power to act directly to take control of assets. That is important for the reasons that I outlined, and the wording of the two clauses is totally analogous and refers to the same circumstances.

Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: When the Minister says that there will be no legal challenge, does he believe that anyone who presumed that the Government's actions were beyond the scope of the requirements in the European treaties would therefore be unable to take legal action?

Mr. Raynsford: This proposal is drafted with a view to protecting the national interest in a situation of emergency where it is necessary for the Government to act. That proposal was inserted to give the Secretary of State the power to act without the risk of such a challenge. There is always the possibility that someone will seek to challenge such an action, but in any case brought before

the courts, it will be clear that there is a power giving the Secretary of State the ability to intervene in this way. The obligation is a clear way of saying that. That is the purpose behind the proposal.

Mr. Duncan Smith: I believe that the Minister is leaving a caveat to what he said earlier and saying that if such a challenge takes place, the higher duty is to European law and overrides the Bill.

Mr. Raynsford: I suspected that the hon. Gentleman was going in that direction. I remind him of what I said earlier. The Government are clearly bound by our international treaty obligations and we must act in compliance with European law. The provisions are compatible with that, for reasons that I will explain in a moment. The fantasy conjured up by the hon. Member for North Essex in Committee, whereby the Government are unable to protect the national interest because European law takes precedence is no more than that: a fantasy.
We are a member of the European Community and will respect its legislation and case law. We are satisfied that the measures that we are taking are consistent with our obligations. Conservative Members believe that developments in Europe will inevitably lead, with or without the consent of the United Kingdom, to a situation in which our policies and practices on all matters affecting the use of airspace and the provision of air traffic services will be dictated from Brussels.
We spent a lot of time in Committee on textual analysis of the treaty of Rome, its amendments and cases taken under it dealing with Community competence in matters of national security. As I made clear then, we are satisfied that our ability under the treaty to take measures to protect national security is not impaired by the case law cited by the hon. Member for North Essex as evidence of an imminent erosion of sovereignty. The case was not proved in Committee and we provided decisive rebuttals.
It is a fact that national and international law develops over time, and I submit that to behave like Canute is not the best means of ensuring that our view on the way forward for air traffic services influences the approach taken by the Community and by Europe generally.
I make no apology for playing a full part in the current discussions on how all European Governments can best act together to meet the challenges presented by ever more crowded airspace and a plethora of service providers. The current situation cannot be sustained indefinitely and those with the most forward-looking approach to both airspace management and service provision will be those whose future is best protected. That is very much one of the guiding principles behind the PPP, and I reject wholeheartedly the case for new clause 27 and its attendant amendments.

Mr. Dalyell: When are the current discussions, which are very important, likely to reach a conclusion? There is considerable interest in the matter.

Mr. Raynsford: I cannot give my hon. Friend a date, because it is not known generally when the discussions will reach a conclusion. They are continuing and I suspect that they will continue for the rest of the year. I undertake


to write to him to give him further news of when progress is likely to be made on some of these rather important issues.
I urge the House to support new clause 5 and its attendant amendments.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The Minister, who dealt with these matters in Committee, may wonder why I am standing at the Dispatch Box. It is not because I favour him and therefore want to give him some light relief from my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin)—I know that he will have withdrawal symptoms as a result of my hon. Friend's absence—but because, having read what took place in Committee, I took the view that the matter was serious enough to merit the attendance of a spokesman on defence matters. I consider national security to be of overarching importance and I think that serious questions relating to defence remain following the exchanges in Committee, which is why I am here, with due deference to my hon. Friend.
In addressing the amendment and other similar amendments that apply to other parts of the Bill, I wish to establish whether clauses 38 and 81, and particularly new clause 5, will address the concerns about the control of our airspace, and thus important issues of national security. I shall return to some of the issues directly arising from the clauses, but I shall begin by trying to establish why the matter is peculiarly important given the nature of the Bill.
It is important to state from the outset that my main concern is not particularly the critical time of war or even the run to war which may be well established, with the security environment setting the tone of the Government's behaviour. It has more to do with the security issues that arise as a result of military training and operation in and around our existing airspace. In an earlier debate, the Secretary of State referred to a document that has just been published. I have not seen it because it is not in the Library. As the right hon. Gentleman referred to it, I should be grateful if he let us see its contents.
On 10 February, in Standing Committee, the Secretary of State referred to schedule 8 in respect of the unique relationship between our defence air traffic controllers and the civil controllers at NATS. That relationship is quite different from that in any other country. We run our airspace in a way that is very efficient compared with America or France which have corridors dedicated to their military airspace and separate their military controllers from the civil controllers, with all the difficulties that that entails. As the RAF do not have corridors and their controllers work cheek by jowl with their civil counterparts, they make efficient use of the airspace. Their unique relationship is both efficient and ensures greater safety within the running of the service, so it has a peculiar extra dimension.
That close relationship relies on a significant amount of trust—an awful lot is not written down, but has always operated in a certain way and works well. For example, if the RAF says that it needs certain airspace, or if for reasons of national security it wishes to block out sections of airspace for a particular time, it is agreed very quickly with NATS, with hardly any interrogation and the RAF gets the airspace that it requires without much quibbling.
My concern is that any private company that takes over the running of NATS will have a different relationship with the RAF. The relationship will, by necessity, change.
The new company may be under foreign ownership. It is clear from what my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex said earlier that that is certainly a possibility. In any case it will be affected by who owns it, regardless of whether it is a foreign company or a British one. The private company will come under increasing pressure to use the available airspace for commercial purposes. It follows, therefore, that it is unlikely that the relationship with the RAF will remain the same as at times, the RAF requirements will conflict with the commercial usage of that airspace.
Our amendments to clauses 38 and 81 and new clause 5 arise from the fact that the Government will be under increasing pressure to invoke the powers granted to them under those provisions more often than they anticipate. No doubt that is why the Government drafted them. Our amendment goes to the heart of the issue: how effective such clauses are likely to be and whether they address the relevant circumstances.
The first aspect that needs to be investigated is whether the clauses really do run foul of the interpretation of existing European law and whether the Government will find it difficult to invoke them successfully over the next few years.
Unless an amendment such as that tabled by my hon. Friends is accepted by the Government—or even addressed—they will open themselves to a progressive series of challenges in the commercial domain from companies that disagree with the application of the clauses. I do not believe that the term "national security" will hold any particular power over the controlling company—it will still challenge where it believes it to be necessary.
The Minister referred to the detailed rebuttal that he gave in Committee. Therefore, it is necessary to ask why he believes that he successfully rebutted the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex. These concerns in particular were raised in Committee. The Government rested their position, and their objection to our concerns about the functioning of the Bill under European law on their belief that, as the Minister said, national security is protected under European law. The Minister referred to a judgment made on 26 October 1999 by the European Court of Justice in the case of Angela Maria Sirdar and the Army Board, Secretary of State for Defence. I do not want to go into details; I know that the hon. Gentleman has been round this fence a few times. However, when he partially referred to paragraph 17 of that judgment, he did himself a disservice. He said that the concept of public security covers both a member state's internal security and its external security. On that, he rested the view that that judgment had made it clear that national security was enough to block off any further challenges through the European Court of Justice. I believe that he was fundamentally wrong.
It was in that particular case that the European Court of Justice made a clear statement, for the first time, that it had a right to rule on issues of national security. It prepared itself the position to say that simply saying national security is no longer good enough.
The Minister failed to show in Committee that the court no longer considers that any member nation has a general treaty exception for reasons of public security. In paragraph 16 of the judgment, the court said:
To recognise the existence of such an exception, regardless of the specific requirements laid down by the Treaty, might impair the binding nature of Community law and its uniform application …


Furthermore, exceptions on the nature of public security are based in this case on derogations of four particular articles. The court has taken a progressively narrow view, over the years, on the way in which derogations should apply, especially if they run counter to the ethos of the market place or the single market.
It is interesting that the Minister should use that case to show that the court did not take a decision against the British Government because of the derogation. In fact, the court made it clear that it considered that it had a full right to revisit these exemptions as and when it saw fit. That is borne out by a judgment on 11 January 2000 in the case of Tanja Kreil and the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. There, the court ruled against the German Government, who had defended a position that they were taking in front of the court for reasons of national security. On this, the court was quite clear. It said:
the question is therefore whether, in the circumstances of the present case, the measures taken by the national authorities, in the exercise of the discretion which they are recognised to enjoy, do in fact have the purpose of guaranteeing public security and whether they are appropriate and necessary to achieve that aim.
Furthermore, the court moved on the issue of derogations by showing that it would allow the use of derogation in this field only if that provision was interpreted strictly.
Thus, in a matter of weeks, the European Court of Justice first established the right to rule on concepts of national security and then went on to use the same basis subsequently to reject the German Government's position. The British Government, in the form of the Minister, used the Sirdar case, so I think it fair to continue down that road and use the next case up.
I deliberately referred to these two cases, because the Minister, in his justification for the Government's position that the new clause, and the clauses already in the Bill, will succeed, prayed in aid the Sirdar case.

Mr. Cash: My hon. Friend makes an honourable case. Given the uncertainties, the vagueness, conflicts and contradictions that are contained under the case law to which he has referred and the enormous number of variations that can occur, could anyone imagine any consistent policy emerging under new clause 5? That provision would apply
in any time of actual or imminent hostilities or of severe international tension or of great national emergency.
One would have to go through a quagmire of legalised contradiction. Would not British national interests and national security be severely prejudiced as a result?

9 pm

Mr. Duncan Smith: If my hon. Friend will bear with me, we shall deal with that argument later on. I agree with him, but I shall cover the point more powerfully in another part of my speech.
In Committee, the Minister prayed in aid the Sirdar case for the success of his provisions. I was concerned by another of his comments. Perhaps under advice from an official—although not, I hope, one who had studied European law—the Minister quoted article 297 of the treaty as the defining moment showing that our concerns and worries were wrong.
The Minister said that the exercise of powers under clause 81 would be entirely consistent with the treaty—in other words, that national security and thus the exercise of derogations, and so on, were sacrosanct in the eyes of the Court. However, I have taken advice on the matter and article 297 means the opposite of that. It is important to re-read the article. It is about how a clash with the ECJ and the acquis communautaire would be remedied. The article states:
Member states shall consult each other with a view to taking together the steps needed to prevent the functioning of the common market being affected by measures which a Member State may be called upon to take in the event of serious internal disturbances affecting the maintenance of law and order, in the event of war, serious international tension constituting a threat of war, or in order to carry out obligations it has accepted for the purpose of maintaining peace and international security.
In effect, it states that one cannot act without consulting all parties within the EU—including the Commission—and adjusting one's actions accordingly.
if the Minister had read on, he would have seen that article 298 kills his argument completely. Article 298 makes it clear that, if the Commission takes the view that the Government have acted in a way that distorts the marketplace, it can take the Government to the ECJ on an accelerated proposal.
The treaty takes a view about a member state making what the treaty determines and the Court then decides is improper use of legislation. The Minister's firm ground in Committee is now very shaky indeed. If the Government felt it necessary to use these provisions to protect national security, there are serious doubts that they would succeed, and that they would not have an injunction placed on them. They need to face up to that problem.
The Government must also face up to some other difficulties presented by their provisions. Their stance is not absolute. There is a progressive process that is likely to give a private company the reason and opportunity to challenge the Government's interpretation of national security—not in great moments of crisis and conflict but, when there is a military requirement for airspace, they may find themselves in some difficulty.
Let us move on to other aspects of the clauses. What will happen if, for example, the Government have security concerns about an employee or employees of the future privatised company? Those concerns might not necessarily arise during a conflict, but in a normal working year when the Government do not have a specific conflict in mind. Clause 38 does not deal with that point even though it should. The Government may decide that certain people pose a security risk to the running of the company, particularly given its relationship with military controllers, but the clause gives them or the company no powers to insist that those people are not employed for security reasons.
In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex referred to the security difficulties of the Kosovo operation. I cite a more obvious example. The French take a different view on the use of our military in Iraq and there may be differences that could lead the Government to decide that a person employed may cause a security breach or lapse as a result of his close connection with the military on the control of airspace. The Government should have addressed that problem in clause 38, but they


have not done so. I urge them to think carefully about it and, if necessary, to table further amendments. At present, the clause is flawed.
Even if the Government want to use another device to stop someone being employed, they will face difficulties. The European security and defence identity process will mean that anyone from the Commission to the European Court will take the view that, because we are in a common defence position, it is difficult to say that a security risk arises in relation to any other member of the European Union. Because the Government have not addressed the problem in clause 38, they have no hook on which to hang that objection. That will create a huge problem for them in the future.
Why does clause 38 not refer to compensation if the Government intend to use the devices available to them? What will happen if there is no compensation provision? Clause 81 and new clause 5 contain such a provision, but if a private company is aggrieved by the provisions employed in clause 38, it will want to take redress in legal processes.

Mr. Raynsford: It might help if I point out to the hon. Gentleman that he has misread clause 38, which is about giving directions. He will surely understand from what I said earlier that there is a distinction between new clause 5, which allows for powers to seize assets and where compensation is clearly appropriate, and the provisions that give directions to the licence holder to act in a certain way. He must recognise that, if there is a fear about the security rating of an individual, that matter can be well covered by the provisions in clause 38(2).

Mr. Duncan Smith: I hear what the Minister says. On compensation, the directions to which he referred could, and are likely to, lead to claims for compensation because the directions might result in changes of operation. As a result of that, the company might claim that there is problem. The Minister dismisses all the arguments as though the Government have arrived with a tablet of stone that cannot be changed. I simply point to a problem.
I do not think that the Minister's other point about whether it is possible to dismiss someone is covered by the clause. He should take serious legal advice, because a company is bound to challenge the provisions.
Under the combinations of events that I have described, a private company is more likely to make a challenge over the issue of national security. The vagueness of some of the wording will, I suspect, lead to further challenges to the Government in the European Court. Clause 81(2)(e) says that the Government may give directions to
a person who owns or operates a relevant asset.
That phrase is so vague that any decision made under the clause in that respect will almost automatically be challenged.
I return to paragraph 26 of the Sirdar judgment that the Government were so keen to pray in aid in Committee. When the issue of national security is invoked, the court states:
That principle requires that derogations remain within the limits of what is appropriate and necessary.
I have genuine and serious concerns about the Government's overall position on national security. This is not an argument for or against privatisation. However,

by the Bill, the Government have opened the door to an issue that was not necessarily questioned previously. It is not enough for the Government, without any serious comment or explanation about our relationship with the European Union, to say that they rest on their own strange belief that all will be well because everyone will trust the Government's judgment.
I sat on the Government Benches when the Conservative Government were in office. I remember Conservative Ministers often saying exactly the same thing. There was almost deja vu when I read some of the Minister's comments in Committee and set them against those made by some of his predecessors within the Conservative party when they were in government. In so many cases they found themselves eating their words two, three or four years later. In each instance they said that they could not have anticipated that the court would move in a particular direction. The Minister should take note of that. Unless he finds his own words an excellent diet, he should be prepared to find himself in deep difficulties in a few years' time.
There is a unique relationship that I would wish to see replicated if a private company is to take over the running of our airspace. That is unlikely as long as the Government fail to accept our amendments or fail to recognise that there is an issue which poses the question, "Who controls our airspace?" That is the key. Throughout consideration of the Bill in Committee the Government failed to answer that question. If they do not do so tonight, the issue of national security remains live and may yet pose huge problems for the implementation of the Bill when it is enacted. When the Government need the legislation, it will not be there. I am deeply concerned.

Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I shall speak to amendment No. 147, which stands in my name. I shall be brief in asking my hon. Friend the Minister two specific questions.
First, the Government have introduced a provision that suggests that ownership can be taken down to 25 per cent. If what I have learned in the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs is anything to go by, a foreign company is almost certain to be the successful bidder. I am concerned about national security. The Government talked originally about a public-private partnership, and I want to know why the Government would accept a 25 per cent. shareholding. Surely this must have a major effect on national security. I want to have some assurances that that is not the position.
During the discussions of the Select Committee, one of the most interesting episodes was a meeting with the senior management of National Air Traffic Services. We talked about expansion and they said that our technology was potentially at the leading edge. They added that that would lead to the possibility of us participating in foreign air traffic control. I believe that there could be problems if the Government were to have any shareholding in air traffic control.
Let us say that the Government maintain their 49 or 46 per cent. holding, a private company is taking control and it decides that it will invest in, for example, Russian air traffic control. There is always the potential for a problem in that airspace. Were there to be a major incident with two airliners crashing, what would be the political and diplomatic implications of such an


investment? In those circumstances, the British Government could be under an A-bomb if there were such an incident in foreign climes. I did not receive a reasonable response on that until the directors of NATS told me that they could not foresee NATS making foreign investments while it had even a single share in publicly owned companies in this country.
9.15 pm
Is that the case? Have we been debating the inevitability of privatisation and are we moving down the road to full-scale privatisation? The technology that we have been told will come on stream at Swanwick and, I assume, Prestwick, could not be used abroad under the auspices of shareholdings still maintained by the public sector and the Government. I would be obliged if my hon. Friend the Minister would reply to that in his summing up.

Mr. Cash: We are debating a transport Bill, but at the heart of this evening's debate is new clause 5, which deals with the defence of the United Kingdom.
Let us imagine going back to, say, 9 May 1940. Tomorrow happens to be my birthday, and it is also the anniversary of the day that Churchill became Prime Minister and, unfortunately, the day on which the Germans invaded the Lowlands. The RAF obtained its first Victoria Cross when Maastricht was invaded on 10 May 1940. [Interruption.] If the Minister would be good enough to listen to my speech for a couple of minutes, which he is obviously incapable of doing—

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament for a long time, so he will know that it is perfectly possible for Ministers to pay attention to the debate and, at the same time, have brief discussions with Whips on matters relating to complex procedures such as those being followed tonight. I hope that he will be less offensive in future.

Mr. Cash: I have no intention of being any less offensive.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would return to the subject that we are debating.

Mr. Cash: Would the Minister be good enough to tell me what I have just said?

Mr. Raynsford: indicated dissent.

Mr. Cash: Obviously he was not listening, as it seems that he has not the faintest idea of what I was talking about. I have therefore made my point.
The new clause concerns the inherent contradictions between the defence of the realm and the Bill's provisions. The Minister referred to our obligations. Subsection (4) of the new clause, which I mentioned earlier, refers to the duty imposed by the Secretary of State. However, if the Minister refers to the European Communities Act 1972, he will see that section 2 clearly states:

in the exercise of any statutory power or duty, including any power to give directions, or to legislate by means of orders—
to which new clause 5 relates—
rules, regulations or other subordinate instrument, the person entrusted—
meaning the Minister himself, if only he would listen—
with the power or duty may have regard to the objects of the Communities and to any such obligation or rights as aforesaid.
I heard the Minister say that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench were living in a fantasy world. However, the provisions that he will introduce in the new clause are mirrored in the provisions of section 2 of the 1972 Act.
The fact is that there is no absolute requirement with respect to duties, but there is a reference to powers. That is why, in an intervention, I asked the Minister, who obviously could not answer, why the Government chose to refer to duties rather than functions. The Minister may not understand the provisions that he is introducing, but the fact is that the word "duty" is carefully chosen, because the word "functions" would include "powers". With that, we enter the arena of the provisions of title V of the Amsterdam treaty. The Minister can shake his head, but he cannot avoid the reality that everything I am saying will happen in due course.
I do not need to go into the details, because they are as clear as daylight. The interaction between the provisions of the Amsterdam treaty, of clauses 38 and 81 and of new clause 5 will reveal that they are inherently contradictory. There is no possibility that anyone will be able, in the defence of the realm, to know exactly what is going on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) said, there is no way, in the event of imminent hostilities or a great national emergency, that anyone will have the opportunity to plough through all the case law and the requirements that have been laid down.
The Minister did not listen when I spoke about incidents that occurred 60 years ago, almost to the day. In those days, we were able to send Spitfires and Hurricanes to defeat an enemy. If new clause 5 is to have any credibility, it must be able to deal with situations of the sort that I described—if it cannot, why bother to introduce it? If there is no reason for concern about national security or the defence of the realm, there is no need to bother with new clause 5—it is irrelevant.
The fact that the Government have introduced the new clause, albeit at the end of our proceedings on the Bill, is an admission that the defence of the realm does matter. It follows that all the provisions must be workable. The Minister shakes his head and in so doing tells the House and the nation that he is not perturbed in the slightest by the fact that there might be contradictions between various provisions of the Bill. However, I believe that the time will come when those deficiencies and contradictions emerge. If they do not become obvious, it will only be owing to the Minister's good luck.
The bottom line is that there are huge contradictions. It would take far more time than is available to me tonight to go through them all. I only hope that the Minister and his advisers are prepared to look again at the provisions to establish whether or not they are right. The question of whether I am right or they are right is secondary to that of the national interest. We are dealing with defence of the realm. The Bill's many other important provisions relating to transport will pale into insignificance if the clauses that we are dealing with now go wrong.
The Government's new clause states:
This section applies in any time of actual or imminent hostilities or of severe international tension or of great national emergency.
It is impossible that the need for such a provision was not anticipated when the Bill was first drafted. Why, then, is it being introduced at the tail end of proceedings, by way of a Government new clause? I should like to add, on a conciliatory note—

Mr. James Gray: Do not get carried away.

Mr. Cash: I shall not. While I do not want to be offensive, I want to be direct. That the Minister is not a Defence Minister is not his fault, but I have to tell him that, if the new clause was drafted in consultation with the Ministry of Defence, he has not done the job properly.
if the Minister looked—it would take far too long to go through it—at the research paper published by the House of Commons Library international affairs and defence section on 21 February this year, "European Defence: From Pörtschach to Helsinki", he would note that there is now a new EU military structure. That structure clearly identifies the roles of the commander-in-chief and the extent to which—this might come as a surprise to the Minister, who is not in the MOD—it is anticipated that our potential adversaries have weapons of mass destruction.
Therefore, under the confines of title V of the Amsterdam treaty, which was passed by this Government, there is a defence dimension. [Interruption.] If the Minister thinks that that is funny, the matter will haunt him if and when things go wrong. I am amazed by the Minister's reaction to the proposal because his new clause does not stand up. Has he consulted the MOD?

Mr. Raynsford: Yes.

Mr. Cash: Has the Minister read or understood title V of the Amsterdam treaty? Can he reconcile the provisions of new clause 5, and clauses 81 and 38 to the extent that the people of this country will be satisfied that, if the lights go out, they will be properly defended and not simply left at risk as a result of this confused, vague, contradictory Bill?

Mr. Wilkinson: I am most grateful—I think that the whole House will have been—to my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) for taking part in the debate on new clauses 5 and 27 and relevant amendments that deal with national security. I will not follow all the detailed arguments that he adumbrated, but I stress that the Government have done well, even at this late stage, to introduce, under new clause 5, powers of requisition in time of national emergency or war of aerodromes, aircraft and relevant equipment. That is entirely appropriate but insufficient without the provisions of new clause 27.
The acquis communautaire is viewed as something in the past and static, but we are legislating for many years to come. The acquis communautaire is always growing; to my knowledge, there are no examples of it receding. The competence of the European Union in matters relating to civil air transport and aviation are clearly growing. The evidence is plain. Let us consider recent examples.
There is the question of bilateral air service agreements. Previously, they were always a matter entirely of national competence—and rightly so. Let us consider questions of capacity on routes, frequencies of service and gateways to or from which those services are operated. Let us consider the matter of slots. The issue of frequency of operation at airports and the facility for airlines to operate from an airport at certain intervals have been jealously guarded, and in this country normally regulated by voluntary mechanisms at individual airports. The European Commission now wishes to take that over, and that has great significance.
My hon. Friend the shadow spokesman and, obliquely, the Minister, spoke about the EU' s ambition to take over Eurocontrol. Eurocontrol would in essence become an agency of the European Union, rather than, as hitherto, a mechanism for mutual co-operation between sovereign, independent nation states in the whole of Europe, to facilitate the efficient management of air transport through the crowded and congested airspace of our continent.
9.30 pm
There is a huge difference between the new concept and the system that we operated in the past, which, despite differences of specification and equipment between nations, the requirements of the military and so on, has worked reasonably well. There has always been a need for improvement. At holiday times, the congestion on the airways can be severe, and Eurocontrol has much work to do, but it should be done in co-operation with national Governments, voluntarily. The issue is technical, rather than political.
Then there is the matter of joint airworthiness requirements. Aircraft are now built to European standards of certification, and aircraft imported into our continent are validated to European standards—joint airworthiness requirements.
Flight crew licensing is a controversial issue, on which we have had debates. The European Civil Aviation Conference has imposed new continentwide regulations which it is eager to impose on flight crew in this country. Those are costly and less effective than the simpler and more straightforward regulations under which air crew have been licensed in the past in the UK.
It is clear from all that that the European Union has hegemonistic aspirations in airspace management. To imagine otherwise is to be blind to the way in which the EU has developed in recent years. The Government would therefore be wise willingly to incorporate new clause 27 into the Bill.
Under clause 81(4)(a), the Secretary of State would have powers to give directions
to regulate or prohibit (absolutely or subject to conditions) the navigation of all or any descriptions of aircraft over the United Kingdom.
If that were challenged by the European Union, as it probably would be, it could cause our Government great difficulty unless we made it plain that British law had precedence over European law in this matter.

Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I had hoped to raise with the Minister, and I shall do so now. If the measure were challenged under article 298 of the European Union consolidated treaties,


it would not be a defence for the Government to invoke the concept of national security and claim that they are unable to define the requirement exactly because of national security, as article 298 states:
The Court of Justice shall give its ruling in camera.
That means that the court will require detail of the reason, which the MOD may not wish to give.

Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who puts flesh on the bones of my argument.
Under subsection (4)(b), the Secretary of State would also have powers to give directions
to regulate or prohibit (absolutely or subject to conditions) the use, building, maintenance or establishment of aerodromes or flying schools or of any description of aerodrome or flying school.
Those are commercial or industrial matters, and again the European Union could understandably claim that its industrial policy should have precedence over our national considerations of sovereignty and independence.
I urge the Government, even at this late hour, to think again. We are not being fanciful. We are not having flights of wild imagination. We are not carried away with Europhobia or anything of the kind. Our arguments are intensely realistic. The Minister is a reasonable man, who has a great grasp of detail. I hope that he appreciates that our arguments have force, and that he will accept them.

Mr. Raynsford: We have had an interesting debate, punctuated by Opposition Members' anxieties about the imagined impact of European Union obligations on national security. Perhaps it would help if I summarised the basic thinking behind the amendment. We have not tabled the new clause at such a late stage simply because of an oversight; we believed that it was necessary to add a further provision in addition to clauses 38 and 81.
As I explained earlier, we believed that it was appropriate to grant the Government direct powers of intervention rather than depending on directions, for which clause 38 provides. I hope that we have made a convincing case for the importance of quick action by Government in times of national emergency. New clause 5 would facilitate that.

Mr. Jenkin: I want to pursue a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) made. New clause 5(4) states:
A person must comply with an order under this section notwithstanding any other duty, however arising.
What other duties does the Minister envisage?

Mr. Raynsford: The new clause is clear. It states "notwithstanding any other duty". That is a clear and firm statement of intent. As I explained earlier in response to the interventions of the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), we believe that the Secretary of State should be able to act without fear of challenge from a party that would try to use the courts to frustrate the Government's action. The Bill includes provisions to enable the Secretary of State to act decisively and to make it clear that no other duties will override that for which the Bill provides.

Mr. Jenkin: Let us suppose that our fantasies are realised and a duty to comply with a contractual

obligation arose under European legislation. Would that duty be set aside under new clause 5? Does the new clause apply to any duty under European Community law?

Mr. Raynsford: I shall have to repeat my response. I am sorry if it is becoming tedious for my hon. Friends, but it is clear that Conservative Members are finding the point difficult to grasp. We are satisfied that our measures are entirely compatible with our treaty obligations. We do not accept Conservative Members' analysis—or fantasy—about a perceived or real conflict between European treaty obligations and the Bill. I shall consider that point in detail later.

Mr. Cash: If the Minister would be kind enough to consider title V of the Amsterdam treaty, perhaps he would concede that it provides that we "shall" comply with a range of provisions, but that in the case of a common action plan, we "may" have to comply with specific provisions, subject to qualified majority voting. We are considering not only duties but powers. I therefore asked the Minister why the new clause did not refer to "functions", which include powers and duties, instead of merely to duties.

Mr. Raynsford: In the nicest possible way, I tell the hon. Gentleman, who is becoming a little tedious, that the Bill is drafted with a view to achieving clarity rather than indulging the fantasies of hon. Members who spend their time immersed in textual analysis of obscure European provisions.
To come to the point, we have introduced the provisions to ensure that the protection of the national interest and national security is unequivocal. The hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) asked whether the change of ownership could prejudice joint civil and military operations. He mentioned the Joint Air Navigation Services Council document, to which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred. I shall pass him a copy, but I assure him that it makes it clear that that body believes that the new arrangement will
preserve the successful civil/military relationship that currently exists between NATS and the MOD and ensure that air traffic services are sustained on a joint and integrated basis, post PPP.
The MOD has been closely involved in the preparation of the provisions and is fully content that under the PPP its joint working arrangements with NATS will be maintained effectively and that national security will not be compromised.
I make it clear that the choice of strategic partner will depend on several factors, one of which will be the ability to demonstrate an appropriate security culture. Under the terms of the licence, we shall be able to prevent unacceptable changes in the control of NATS on national security grounds.
The hon. Gentleman asked who would control our airspace. I make it absolutely clear that UK airspace remains under UK control regardless of who is the strategic partner. Air traffic services will be provided under a licence, which may be revoked, or the special administration regime may be triggered if the licence conditions or the statutory duties, including safety duties, are breached.
The other main thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks relate to the competence of the European Commission and the European Union. The Commission has seen the Bill's


text and has not suggested that there is any conflict between any of its provisions and the requirements of the treaty. Of course, I do not expect Conservative Members to accept that.

Mr. Duncan Smith: rose—

Mr. Raynsford: I will give way in a moment, if the hon. Gentleman restrains himself. Conservative Members demonise the Commission, so the idea that it can have had a sensible and intelligent discussion with us about the provisions is completely alien to their nature, but if they return from fantasy land to the real world, they will realise that that is the reality.

Mr. Duncan Smith: The hon. Gentleman says that we demonise the Commission, but if I were part of the Commission, I would have exactly that opinion. It falls in with our argument—the Commission is content because the provision lays the Government open to the future policies that we have discussed.
I ask the Minister a simple question. He mentioned the action that the Government may take under new clause 5, or under clauses 38 or 81, but especially under new clause 5(4), which includes the words:
notwithstanding any other duty, however arising.
He said that in the clear belief that no other duty will matter, because the derogation on national security is absolute, but he should remind himself that the derogation exists for only four articles of the treaty of Rome. There is no derogation on any other article. Beyond those four, the Government will face a clash of duty, and the duty will be to European law.

Mr. Raynsford: Despite the hon. Gentleman's continued attempt to muddy the waters by suggesting that the EU will have competence in matters beyond those in which it already has competence, it cannot rule on matters that are outside its treaty competence, and a court cannot provide competences that do not exist. The treaty does not confer competence with regard to national security and defence. We have exhausted that issue, and I shall not spend much of my time fruitlessly reading documents that the Conservative party has consistently misinterpreted year on year—a fact that explains its curious position on Europe.

Mr. Jenkin: Would it be legal to invoke the golden share on grounds of national security?

Mr. Raynsford: The golden share is there to preserve a number of national interests, and can be used in respect of national security issues as well as other matters. We have dealt with the issue of the power of the golden share, and that of the potential suspected European challenge to the golden share, which Opposition Members raised in Committee, and we are satisfied that the golden share is compatible with our European treaty obligations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) asked about the implications of Government shareholding for the future expansion of NATS overseas. I assure him that NATS will engage in future activities abroad as a private company, and that the Government's shareholding will not play a role.
The Government will not be involved in any direct contractual relationship with overseas Governments. As I have said, we expect NATS—as a public-private partnership with a solid share structure—to be able to thrive in overseas markets, subject to the laws of the jurisdictions in which they operate.

Mr. Donohoe: Can the Minister answer a simple question? Why was an amendment tabled in Committee to reduce the Government's shareholding to 25 per cent?

Mr. Raynsford: As I explained in some detail then, the provision is intended to deal with a dilution of the share capital. That might happen for a number of reasons. It might be considered appropriate to raise additional finance, or it might be considered appropriate to enter into joint ventures with other parties. In such circumstances, it might seem right to dilute the share capital, and to allow the Government's shareholding to fall to, but not below, 25 per cent. That in no way compromises all the powers and safeguards that are in place, to which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister referred earlier. The golden share remains, the partnership shareholders retain their role and their power, the shareholders' agreement with the strategic partner remains in force, and all the existing safeguards will continue irrespective of that possibility. It is simply a provision to allow for a possible commercial eventuality, which should not be seen as a cause for concern.
The hon. Member for Stone described the Bill in terms that reminded me of himself. He spoke of a confused, vague, contradictory and repetitive Bill, and I do not think that he added much to the debate. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) spoke of the hegemonistic aspirations of the European Union. That merely reinforced my fear that the Opposition were being driven by a particular view of Europe that was clouding their judgment.
These are sensible, practical provisions, which will enable us to look after the interests of national security in a practical, common-sense way. They are far removed from the Opposition's motivation, which is clearly conditioned by their negative view of Europe. We would prefer to be engaged positively with Europe in building a better future for air traffic control systems in this country and throughout Europe.

Mr. Jenkin: The position can be summarised in this way: the Government are in complete denial about the fact that national security issues are justiciable by the European Court, and that the derogations allowed to member states that wish to act on grounds of national security are very limited.
Let me ask the Minister, for example, whether the golden share could be invoked on grounds of national security. The opinion from the Commission makes the answer absolutely clear. Article 223 of the relevant treaty—the old treaty, that is; according to the new numbering, it is article 296—allows
Member states to take measures they consider necessary for the protection of … their security which are connected with the defence sector. However, the Court of Justice pointed out that Article 223 covers only exceptional and clearly defined cases.
Because of its limited character, this article does not lend itself to a wide interpretation and it is not possible to infer from it that there is inherent in the Treaty a general proviso covering all measures taken for reasons of public security.


That absolutely lays it down. It is why the Germans lost the Kreil case. [Interruption.] It does not matter whether internal or external security is involved. That provision means that, although the Minister has obviously been advised in good faith that there is an exemption for all invocations of public security, the general blanket exemption does not exist. It is in the treaties. For example, article 36—I am looking at the old treaty again—says:
The provisions of Articles 28 and 29 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security.
There is the exemption, but it is prescribed that
prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States.
Therefore, every invocation of public security that Ministers may make will have to be justified. What is more, it will have to be justified in terms of articles 297 and 298, which can require the European Court of Justice to require the member state to give reasons in camera in court. Therefore, the Ministry of Defence will have to go to the European Court of Justice in secret session to justify why the Government should inflict an obligation on the private company running National Air Traffic Services.
It is all spelled out. If the Government cannot accept it, we will have to press our amendment to new clause 5 to a vote.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time.

Amendment proposed to new clause 5: (a), at end of subsection (4) insert
'including any duty arising under or by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972 (as amended).'.—[Mr. Jenkin.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 405.

Division No. 187]
[9.53 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Amess, David
Cran, James


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Baldry, Tony
Day, Stephen


Beggs, Roy
Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen


Bercow, John
Duncan Smith, Iain


Beresford, Sir Paul
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Blunt, Crispin
Evans, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Faber, David


Boswell, Tim
Fabricant, Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Fallon, Michael


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Flight, Howard


Brady, Graham
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Brazier, Julian
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Dr Liam


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fraser, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Garnier, Edward


Burns, Simon
Gibb, Nick


Butterfill, John
Gill, Christopher


Cash, William
Gillan, Mrs Cheryl


Chope, Christopher
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Clappison, James
Gray, James


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Green, Damian



Greenway, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hague, Rt Hon William


Collins, Tim
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie




Hammond, Philip
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hawkins, Nick
Prior, David


Hayes, John
Randall, John


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Robathan, Andrew


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Laurence


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hunter, Andrew
Ruffley, David


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
St Aubyn, Nick


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Jenkin, Bernard
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Richard


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Soames, Nicholas


Lansley, Andrew
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Sir Michael


Letwin, Oliver
Spring, Richard


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lidington, David
Streeter, Gary


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Swayne, Desmond


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Syms, Robert


Luff, Peter
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Townend, John


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Tredinnick, David


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Trend, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Tyrie, Andrew


Madel, Sir David
Viggers, Peter



Walter, Robert


Major, Rt Hon John
Waterson, Nigel


Malins, Humfrey
Wells, Bowen


Maples, John
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Whittingdale, John


May, Mrs Theresa
Wilkinson, John


Moss, Malcolm
Wilshire, David


Nicholls, Patrick
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Norman, Archie
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)
Yeo, Tim


Ottaway, Richard
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Page, Richard


Paice, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


Paterson, Owen
Mrs. Eleanor Laing and


Pickles, Eric
Mr. Peter Atkinson.



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Blackman, Liz


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Blears, Ms Hazel


Ainger, Nick
Blizzard, Bob


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Alexander, Douglas
Boateng, Rt Hon Paul


Allan, Richard
Borrow, David


Allen, Graham
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bradshaw, Ben


Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary
Brake, Tom


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Brand, Dr Peter


Ashton, Joe
Breed, Colin


Atherton, Ms Candy
Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Atkins, Charlotte


Baker, Norman
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Ballard, Jackie
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Banks, Tony
Browne, Desmond


Barnes, Harry
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Battle, John
Buck, Ms Karen


Bayley, Hugh
Burden, Richard


Beard, Nigel
Burgon, Colin


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Burnett, John


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Burstow, Paul


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Butler, Mrs Christine


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Bennett, Andrew F
Cable, Dr Vincent


Bermingham, Gerald
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Berry, Roger
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Best, Harold
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Betts, Clive





Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Flynn, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Follett, Barbara


Caplin, Ivor
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Casale, Roger
Foster, Don (Bath)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Cawsey, Ian
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Foulkes, George


Chaytor, David
Fyfe, Maria


Chidgey, David
Galbraith, Sam


Church, Ms Judith
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Gardiner, Barry


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)



Gibson, Dr Ian


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Gidley, Ms Sandra


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Goggins, Paul


Clelland, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clwyd, Ann
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Coaker, Vernon
Gorrie, Donald


Coffey, Ms Ann
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Coleman, Iain
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Colman, Tony
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Connarty, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Grogan, John


Cooper, Yvette
Gunnell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Corston, Jean
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Cotter, Brian
Hanson, David


Cousins, Jim
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Cox, Tom
Harris, Dr Evan


Cranston, Ross
Harvey, Nick


Crausby, David
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Healey, John


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)


Cummings, John
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)



Hepburn, Stephen


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Heppell, John


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hesford, Stephen


Dalyell, Tam
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hill, Keith


Darvill, Keith
Hinchliffe, David


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hoey, Kate


Davidson, Ian
Home Robertson, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hood, Jimmy


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Hope, Phil



Hopkins, Kelvin


Dawson, Hilton
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Denham, John
Howells, Dr Kim


Dismore, Andrew
Hoyle, Lindsay


Dobbin, Jim
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Donohoe, Brian H
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Doran, Frank
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Dowd, Jim
Humble, Mrs Joan


Drew, David
Hurst, Alan


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hutton, John


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)
Illsley, Eric


Edwards, Huw
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Efford, Clive
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Ennis, Jeff
Jamieson, David


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Jenkins, Brian


Fearn, Ronnie
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Fisher, Mark


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Flint, Caroline
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)




Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Keeble, Ms Sally
Norris, Dan


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Oaten, Mark


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Kemp, Fraser
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)
O'Hara, Eddie



Olner, Bill


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
O'Neill, Martin


Khabra, Piara S
Öpik, Lembit


Kidney, David
Organ, Mrs Diana


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Kirkwood, Archy
Pearson, Ian


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pendry, Tom


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Perham, Ms Linda


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Pickthall, Colin


Lepper, David
Pike, Peter L


Leslie, Christopher
Plaskitt, James


Levitt, Tom
Pollard, Kerry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Pond, Chris


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Pope, Greg


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Pound, Stephen


Linton, Martin
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Livsey, Richard
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Llwyd, Elfyn
Primarolo, Dawn


Lock, David
Prosser, Gwyn


Love, Andrew
Purchase, Ken


McAvoy, Thomas
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


McCabe, Steve
Quinn, Lawrie


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


McDonagh, Siobhain
Raynsford, Nick


Macdonald, Calum
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


McDonnell, John
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McFall, John
Rendel, David


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McIsaac, Shona
Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Rooney, Terry


Mackinlay, Andrew
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Rowlands, Ted


MacShane, Denis
Roy, Frank


Mactaggart, Fiona
Ruane, Chris


McWalter, Tony
Ruddock, Joan


McWilliam, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mallaber, Judy
Salter, Martin


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sanders, Adrian


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sarwar, Mohammad


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sawford, Phil


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Maxton, John
Shipley, Ms Debra


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Merron, Gillian
Singh, Marsha


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Skinner, Dennis


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moore, Michael
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Snape, Peter


Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Soley, Clive


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morley, Elliot
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Squire, Ms Rachel



Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Steinberg, Gerry



Stevenson, George


Mountford, Kali
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mudie, George
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Mullin, Chris
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stoate, Dr Howard





Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Tynan, Bill


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Vaz, Keith


Stringer, Graham
Ward, Ms Claire


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wareing, Robert N


Stunell, Andrew
Watts, David


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Webb, Steve


Swinney, John
Welsh, Andrew


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Wicks, Malcolm


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Taylor, David (NW Leics)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)
Willis, Phil


Timms, Stephen
Wills, Michael


Tipping, Paddy
Wilson, Brian


Todd, Mark
Winnick, David


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Wood, Mike


Trickett, Jon
Woolas, Phil


Truswell, Paul
Worthington, Tony


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wyatt, Derek


Turner, Neil (Wigan)


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Mr. Tony McNulty and


Tyler, Paul
Mr. Don Touhig.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause added to the Bill.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour.

New Clause 1

EXCEPTIONS

' —(1) The CAA must not make a final order or make or confirm a provisional order if it is satisfied that—

(a) the duty imposed on it by section 2 precludes it from doing so, or
(b) the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act 1998.

(2) If the CAA is satisfied that any of the conditions in subsection (3) applies it must not make a final order or make or confirm a provisional order unless it believes that it is appropriate to do so.

(3) The conditions are that—

(a) the licence holder has agreed to take and is taking all the steps the CAA thinks appropriate to secure or facilitate compliance with the duty or condition concerned;
(b) the contraventions or apprehended contraventions are trivial;
(c) the contraventions or apprehended contraventions will not adversely affect the interests of the persons referred to in subsection (4);
(d) the Secretary of State has made an application under section 28 for an air traffic administration order in relation to the licence holder.

(4) The persons are operators and owners of aircraft, owners and managers of aerodromes, persons travelling in aircraft and persons with rights in property carried in them.

(5) These interests are the only ones to be considered under subsection (3)(c)—

(a) interests regarding safety;
(b) interests regarding the range, availability, continuity, cost and quality of air traffic services.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

DIRECTIONS RELATING TO THE ENVIRONMENT

'—(1) The Secretary of State may give such directions as he thinks are necessary or expedient—

(a) to prevent or deal with noise, vibration, pollution or other disturbance attributable to aircraft used for the purpose of civil aviation;
(b) to limit or mitigate the effects of such noise, vibration, pollution or disturbance.

(2) Directions under this section may be given to—

(a) a licence holder or licence holders generally;
(b) a person who is authorised by an exemption to provide air traffic services (an authorised person) or authorised persons generally.

(3) A direction under this section may be of a general character or may require a licence holder or an authorised person to do or not to do a particular thing.

(4) A direction under this section may include provision requiring persons to have regard to guidance which relates to the environment and which the Secretary of State may issue from time to time.

(5) In so far as a direction under this section conflicts with the requirements of section 38 or 81 or of an order under section (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.), the direction is to be disregarded.

(6) In so far as a direction under this section conflicts with the requirements of an enactment or instrument other than section 38 or 81 or an order under section (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.), the requirements are to be disregarded.

(7) Before giving a direction under this section to a particular licence holder or authorised person (as opposed to licence holders or authorised persons generally) requiring him to do or not to do a particular thing, the Secretary of State must consult—

(a) that licence holder or authorised person;
(b) the CAA.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

CAA's 1973 ACT FUNCTIONS

'—(1) For the purposes of this section the CAA's 1973 Act functions are the functions mentioned in subsection (2) of section 76 which, by virtue of that section, are functions of the CAA.

(2) The CAA must exercise its 1973 Act functions in the manner it thinks best calculated—

(a) to further the interests of operators and owners of aircraft, owners and managers of aerodromes, persons travelling in aircraft and persons with rights in property carried in them;
(b) to promote efficiency and economy on the part of suppliers of air traffic services;
(c) to secure that suppliers of air traffic services who are licence holders will not find it unduly difficult to finance activities authorised by their licences;
(d) to take account of any international obligations of the United Kingdom notified to the CAA by the Secretary of State (whatever the time or purpose of the notification);
(e) to take account of any guidance on environmental objectives given to the CAA by the Secretary of State after the coming into force of this section;
(f) to impose on suppliers of air traffic services the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the exercise of the CAA's 1973 Act functions.

(3) These interests are the only ones to be considered under subsection (2)(a)—

(a) interests regarding safety;
(b) interests regarding the range, availability, continuity, cost and quality of air traffic services.

(4) The reference in subsection (2)(a) to furthering interests includes a reference to furthering them (where the CAA thinks it appropriate) by promoting competition in the provision of air traffic services.

(5) If in a particular case there is a conflict in the application of the provisions of subsections (2) to (4), in relation to that case the CAA must exercise its 1973 Act functions in the manner it thinks is reasonable having regard to the provisions of subsections (2) to (4) as a whole.

(6) Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (CAA's general objectives) does not apply in relation to the performance by the CAA of its 1973 Act functions.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 12

CAA's 1998 ACT FUNCTIONS

'—(1) For the purposes of this section the CAA's 1998 Act functions are the functions mentioned in subsection (3) of section 76 which, by virtue of that section, are functions of the CAA.

(2) In exercising its 1998 Act functions the CAA may (in particular) have regard to any matter which satisfies the following condition.

(3) The condition is that the matter is one to which, by virtue of section (CAA 's 1973 Act functions), the CAA must have regard in exercising its 1973 Act functions (within the meaning of that section).'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 20

COMMISSION'S POWER TO GIVE direction

'—(1) This section applies if the Competition Commission is given notice under section 13.

(2) Within the permitted period the Commission may give a direction to the CAA—

(a) not to make the modifications set out in the notice, or
(b) not to make such of those modifications as are specified in the direction.

(3) But the Commission may give a direction only if it thinks the modifications concerned are not appropriate to remedy or prevent the adverse effects specified in the Commission's report on the reference under section 11.

(4) If the Commission gives a direction it must—

(a) publish a notice in such manner as the Commission thinks appropriate for bringing the matters to which it relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the direction, and
(b) serve a copy of the notice on the licence holder.

(5) The notice must set out—

(a) the modifications set out in the notice given under section 13,
(b) the direction, and
(c) the reasons for giving the direction.

(6) If the permitted period expires without a direction being given under subsection (2) the CAA must make the modifications set out in the notice given under section 13.

(7) If within the permitted period a direction is given under subsection (2)(b) the CAA must make the modifications which are—

(a) set out in the notice given under section 13, and
(b) not specified in the direction.

(8) As soon as practicable after making modifications under this section the CAA must send a copy of them to the licence holder and a copy to the Secretary of State.

(9) The permitted period is the period of four weeks starting with the day the Commission is given notice under section 13.

(10) But if within that period—

(a) the Commission applies to the Secretary of State to extend it to six weeks, and
(b) he directs that it is to be so extended,
the permitted period is the period of six weeks starting with the day the Commission is given notice under section 13.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 21

POSITION WHERE COMMISSION GIVES direction

'—(1) This section applies if the Competition Commission gives a direction under section (Commission's power to give direction)(2).

(2) If the direction is given under section (Commission's power to give direction)(2)(a) the Commission may itself make such modifications of the conditions of the licence as it thinks are needed to remedy or prevent the adverse effects specified in the Commission's report on the reference under section 11.

(3) If the direction is given under section (Commission's power to give direction)(2)(b) the Commission may itself make such modifications of the conditions of the licence as it thinks are needed to remedy or prevent such of the adverse effects as—

(a) are specified in the Commission's report on the reference under section 11, and
(b) would not be remedied or prevented by the modifications set out in the notice under section 13 and not specified under section (Commission's power to give direction)(2)(b).

(4) Before making modifications under this section the Commission must—

(a) publish a notice in such manner as the Commission thinks appropriate for bringing the matters to which it relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the making of the modifications,
(b) serve a copy of the notice on the licence holder and a copy on the CAA, and
(c) consider any representations made in accordance with the notice (and not withdrawn).

(5) The notice must—

(a) state that the Commission proposes to make the modifications and state their effect and the reasons for so proposing, and
(b) state the period (not less than 28 days starting with the date of publication of the notice) within which representations may be made regarding the proposed modifications.

(6) As soon as practicable after making modifications under this section the Commission must send a copy of them to the licence holder, a copy to the Secretary of State and a copy to the CAA.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 22

DIRECTIONS: FURTHER PROVISION

'—(1) Directions under section 64(1) may include provision as to the manner in which the CAA is to exercise its air navigation functions.

(2) The provision may include—

(a) provision requiring consultation with specified persons or specified descriptions of persons in relation to specified matters;
(b) provision requiring the CAA to seek the approval of the Secretary of State in relation to specified matters;
(c) provision requiring the CAA in specified circumstances to refer specified matters to the Secretary of State.

(3) If a matter is referred to the Secretary of State by virtue of subsection (2)(b) or (c), he may give such directions to the CAA as he thinks fit.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 23

INFORMATION FOR PURPOSES OF CHAPTER III

'—(1) The CAA may, for any purpose connected with its air navigation functions, serve on a person who provides air traffic services a notice which—

(a) requires the person to produce any documents which are specified or described in the notice and are in his custody or under his control, and to produce them at a time and place so specified and to a person so specified, or
(b) requires the person to supply information specified or described in the notice, and to supply it at a time and place and in a form and manner so specified and to a person so specified.

(2) A requirement may be made under subsection (1)(b) only if the person is carrying on a business.

(3) No person may be required under this section—

(a) to produce documents which he could not be compelled to produce in civil proceedings in the court;
(b) to supply information which he could not be compelled to supply in such proceedings.

(4) If a person without reasonable excuse fails to do anything required of him by a notice under subsection (1) he is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(5) If a person intentionally alters, suppresses or destroys a document which he has been required to produce by a notice under subsection (1) he is guilty of an offence and liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.

(6) If a person makes default in complying with a notice under subsection (1) the court may on the CAA's application make such order as the court thinks fit for requiring the default to be made good.

(7) An order under subsection (6) may provide that all the costs or expenses of and incidental to the application are to be borne—

(a) by the person in default, or
(b) if officers of a company or other association are responsible for its default, by those officers.

(8) A reference to producing a document includes a reference to producing a legible and intelligible copy of information recorded otherwise than in legible form.

(9) A reference to suppressing a document includes a reference to destroying the means of reproducing information recorded otherwise than in legible form.

(10) A reference to the court is to—

(a) the High Court in relation to England and Wales or Northern Ireland;
(b) the Court of Session in relation to Scotland.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 24

GENERAL DUTY

'—(1) The CAA must exercise its air navigation functions in the manner it thinks best calculated—

(a) to secure the most efficient use of airspace consistent with the safe operation of aircraft and the expeditious flow of air traffic;
(b) to satisfy the requirements of operators and owners of all classes of aircraft;
(c) to take account of the interests of any person (other than an operator or owner of an aircraft) in relation to the use of any particular airspace or the use of airspace generally;
(d) to take account of any guidance on environmental objectives given to the CAA by the Secretary of State after the coming into force of this section;
(e) to facilitate the integrated operation of air traffic services provided by or on behalf of the armed forces of the Crown and other air traffic services;
(f) to take account of the interests of national security;
(g) to take account of any international obligations of the United Kingdom notified to the CAA by the Secretary of State (whatever the time or purpose of the notification);
(h) to impose on providers of air traffic services the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the requirements of the above paragraphs.

(2) If in a particular case there is a conflict in the application of the provisions of subsection (1), in relation to that case the CAA must exercise its air navigation functions in the manner it thinks is reasonable having regard to the provisions of subsection (1) as a whole.

(3) Section 4 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 (CAA's general objectives) does not apply in relation to the performance by the CAA of its air navigation functions.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 25

INTERPRETATION

'—(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Chapter.

(2) The CAA's air navigation functions are the functions which the CAA is to perform in pursuance of directions under section 64(1).

(3) These are managed areas—

(a) the United Kingdom;
(b) any area which is outside the United Kingdom but in respect of which the United Kingdom has undertaken under international arrangements to provide air traffic services.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 1

SECRETARY OF STATE'S GENERAL DUTY

Amendments made: No. 12, in page 1, line 24, after "the" insert "range,".

No. 13, in page 1, line 25, at end insert—
'(2A) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to furthering interests includes a reference to furthering them (where the Secretary of State thinks it appropriate) by promoting competition in the provision of air traffic services.'.

No. 14, in page 1, line 27, leave out "and (2)" and insert "to (2A)".

No. 15, in page 2, line 1, leave out "and (2)" and insert "to (2A)".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 2

CAA's GENERAL DUTY

Amendments made: No. 16, in page 2, line 25, after "the" insert "range,".

No. 17, in page 2, line 26, at end insert—
'(2A) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to furthering interests includes a reference to furthering them (where the CAA thinks it appropriate) by promoting competition in the provision of air traffic services.'.

No. 18, in page 2, line 28, leave out "and (2)" and insert "to (2A)".

No. 19, in page 2, line 30, leave out "and (2)" and insert "to (2A)".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 3

RESTRICTIONS ON PROVIDING SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 374, in page 3, line 5, at end insert—
'( ) Subsection (1) does not apply if the services are provided by the CAA in pursuance of directions under section 64(1).'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 6

LICENCES: GRANT

Amendments made: No. 73, in page 4, line 29, after "granting" insert "or refusing".

No. 74, in page 4, line 32, leave out ", and" and insert "or refusal,
(aa) serve a copy of the notice on the applicant, and'.

No. 75, in page 4, line 36, leave out—
'that the licence authority proposes to grant the licence and'

and insert—
'either that the licence authority proposes to grant the licence that it proposes to refuse it and (in either case)'.

No. 76, in page 4, line 40, leave out "licence" and insert "grant or refusal".

No. 77, in page 5, line 2, leave out—
'to applications and grants relating'
and insert "in relation".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 8

DUTIES OF LICENCE HOLDERS

Amendment made: No. 373, in page 6, line 5, at end insert—
(4) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a) a system for the provision of services is safe if (and only if) in providing the services the person who provides them complies with such requirements as are imposed by Air Navigation Orders with regard to their provision.
(5) An Air Navigation Order is an Order in Council under section 60 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 9

BREACH OF DUTIES OR CONDITIONS

Amendment made: No. 30, in page 6, line 13, leave out "15 or".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 11

REFERENCES TO COMPETITION COMMISSION

Amendment made: No. 29, in page 6, line 41, leave out—
under the authority of a licence'

and insert—
'by or on behalf of a licence holder'.

No. 20, in page 7, line 45, after "under" insert—
'Parts IV, V, VI and VIII of'.

No. 21, in page 8, line 5, leave out "and 85" and insert", 85 and 93B".

No. 22, in page 8, line 5, leave out second "and".

No. 23, in page 8, line 6, at end insert—

'; and false or misleading information);'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 13

MODIFICATION FOLLOWING REPORT

Amendment made: No. 336, in page 9, line 11, leave out "make" and insert "suggest".

No. 337, in page 9, line 14, leave out "making" and insert "suggesting".

No. 338, in page 9, line 23, leave out "make" and insert "suggest".

No. 339, in page 9, line 27, leave out "proposed modifications" and insert "proposals".

No. 340, in page 9, line 28, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
'(5) If the CAA suggests modifications under this section it—

(a) give notice to the Commission setting out the modifications it suggests and the reasons for its suggestions, and
(b) send to the Commission copies of any representations made in accordance with the notice published under subsection (3) (and not withdrawn).'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 14

MODIFICATION BY ORDER UNDER OTHER ENACTMENTS

Amendment made: No. 24, in page 9, line 39, leave out—
'whose provision is authorised by a licence'.

No. 25, in page 9, line 44, leave out—
'under the authority of a licence'.

No. 26, in page 10, leave out line 4.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 15

ORDERS FOR SECURING COMPLIANCE

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 10, line 16, leave out Clause 15.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 16

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

Amendment made: No. 32, in page 11, line 24, leave out Clause 16.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 17

VALIDITY OF ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 12, line 41, leave out Clause 17.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 18

EFFECT OF ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 13, line 18, leave out Clause 18.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 19

POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 13, line 34, leave out Clause 19.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 20

ENFORCEMENT BY CAA

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 14, line 37, leave out Clause 20.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 21

ORDERS FOR SECURING COMPLIANCE

Amendment made: No. 37, in page 15, line 3, after first "a" insert—
'section 8 duty or a'.

No. 38, in page 15, line 4, after "provision" insert "it thinks is".

No. 39, in page 15, line 4, after "the" insert "duty or".

No. 40, in page 15, line 6, after first "a" insert—
'section 8 duty or a'.

No. 41, in page 15, line 8, after "the" insert "duty or".

No. 42, in page 15, line 13, after "the" insert "section 8 duty or".

No. 43, in page 15, line 14, after second "a" insert "section 8 duty or".

No. 44, in page 15, line 16, leave out "negligence" and insert—
'an act or omission which takes place in the course of the provision of air traffic services'.

No. 45, in page 15, line 37, after "a" insert—
'section 8 duty or a'.

No. 46, in page 15, line 39, after "the" insert "duty or".

No. 47, in page 15, line 40, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 16.

No. 48, in page 16, line 5, after "holder" insert "—

(a) a section 8 duty is a duty imposed on the holder by section 8:
(b)".

No. 49, in page 16, line 7, leave out "22" and insert—
'(Exceptions)'.

No. 50, in page 16, line 7, after second "to" insert—
'a section 8 duty or to'.

No. 51, in page 16, line 8, at end insert—
'(13) This section has effect subject to section (Exceptions)'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 22

PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS

Amendment made: No. 52, in page 16, line 21, after first "the" insert "section 8 duty or".

No. 53, in page 16, line 23, after "the" insert "duty or".

No. 54, in page 16, line 40, at end insert—
'(4A) But if the modifications are trivial the CAA must be treated as complying with subsection (4) if it serves on the licence holder a notice of the proposal to make or confirm the order with modifications.'.

No. 55, in page 16, line 43, after "holder" insert—
'and a copy on the Secretary of State'.

No. 56, in page 17, line 20, leave out "21(10)" and insert—
'(Exceptions) (1)'.

No. 57, in page 17, line 21, after "serve" insert "a".

No. 58, in page 17, line 24, at end insert—
'(10) If the CAA is satisfied as mentioned in section (Exceptions)(2) and it does not believe it is appropriate to make a final order or make or confirm a provisional order, it must—

(a) serve a notice to that effect on the licence holder, and
(b) publish the notice in such manner as it thinks appropriate for bringing the matters to which the notice relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 23

VALIDITY OF ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 59, in page 17, line 29, leave out "section 21" and insert—
'sections 21 and (Exceptions)'.

No. 60, in page 17, line 39, leave out "section 21" and insert—
'sections 21 and (Exceptions)'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 25

POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION

Amendment made: No. 61, in page 18, line 18, at end insert—
'section 8 duty or a'.

No. 62, in page 18, line 21, leave out "section 21" and insert—
'sections 21 and (Exceptions)'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 27

DUTY TO MAKE ORDER

Amendment made: No. 1, in page 20, line 1, at end insert—
'or appoint a provisional liquidator.'.

No. 2, in page 20, line 4, at end insert—
'(4A) The Secretary of State and the CAA may propose a person to manage the company's affairs, business and property while an air traffic administration order is in force; and if they do the court must appoint that person.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 28

POWER TO MAKE ORDER

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 20, line 11, leave out "five" and insert "four".

No. 64, in page 20, line 25, leave out "16(9)" and insert " 22(9) or (10)".

No. 65, in page 20, line 32, at end insert "or a licence condition".

No. 66, in page 20, line 33, leave out "17" and insert "23".

No. 67, in page 20, line 37, leave out from beginning to end of line 43.

No. 68, in page 21, line 1, after "duty" insert—
'or to a licence condition'.

No. 69, in page 21, line 2, leave out "15" and insert— "21".

No. 70, in page 21, line 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 4.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 30

PETITIONS AND ORDERS: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendment made: No. 368, in page 21, line 40, at end insert—
'(ba) in subsection (1)(c) after "its property" there were inserted ", and no right of re-entry or forfeiture may be enforced against the company in respect of any land,";'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 35

REGISTER

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 23, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 32.

No. 72, in page 23, line 35, at end insert "or (10)".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 38

DIRECTIONS IN INTERESTS OF NATIONAL SECURITY ETC.

Amendment made: No. 125, in page 24, line 34, after "81" insert—
'or of an order under section (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.)'.

No. 126, in page 24, line 36, after "81" insert—
'or an order under section (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.)'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 39

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 78, in page 25, line 30, at end insert—
'(h) modification.'.

No. 79, in page 25, line 44, at end insert—
'(7) "Modification" includes addition, alteration and omission, and cognate expressions are to be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

clause 40

MEANING OF TRANSFER SCHEMES

Amendment made: No. 89, in page 26, line 5, leave out from "which" to end of line 8 and insert—
'contains provisions falling within one or more of subsections (2) to (3E).'.

No. 90, in page 26, line 22, at end insert—

'(ba) a company which is wholly owned by the Crown;
(bb) a company which is wholly owned by the CAA;'.

No. 91, in page 26, line 23, leave out from "of' to end of line 24 and insert—
'a company falling within paragraph (ba) or (bb).'.

No. 92, in page 26, line 24, at end insert—
'(3A) Provisions falling within this subsection are ones for the transfer of any of the property, rights or liabilities of a company (the transferor) which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a company wholly owned by the CAA, or of all or part of the transferor's undertaking, to any of the following—

(a) the CAA;
(b) a company which is wholly owned by the Crown;
(c) a company which is wholly owned by the CAA;
(d) a company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a company falling within paragraph (b) or (c).
(3B) Provisions falling within this subsection are ones for the transfer of any of the property, rights or liabilities of a company (the transferor) which is wholly owned by the Crown but which was wholly owned by the CAA on the coming into force of this section, or of all or part of the transferor's undertaking, to any of the following—

(a) a company which is wholly owned by the Crown;
(b) a company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the transferor.
(3C) Provisions falling within this subsection are ones for the transfer of any of the property, rights or liabilities of a company (the transferor) which is wholly owned by the Crown, or of all or part of the transferor's undertaking, to the CAA.
(3D) Provisions falling within this subsection are ones for the transfer of any of the property, rights or liabilities of a company (the transferor) in circumstances where the transferor is a wholly owned subsidiary of a company (the holding company) wholly owned by


the Crown and the holding company was wholly owned by the CAA on the coming into force of this section, or of all or part of the transferor's undertaking, to any of the following—

(a) a company which is wholly owned by the Crown;
(b) a company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a company falling within paragraph (a).
(3E) Provisions falling within this subsection are ones for the transfer of any of the property, rights or liabilities of a company (the transferor) which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a company wholly owned by the Crown, or of all or part of the transferor's undertaking, to the CAA.'.

No. 93, in page 26, line 29, after "a" insert "transfer.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Ordered,

That clause No. 40, as amended, be divided into two Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (4)—[Meaning of transfer scheme] and the second of subsections (5) to (9) [Transfer schemes: supplementary].—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 42

EFFECT OF SCHEME MADE BY CAA

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 28, line 3, at end insert—

'(8) In this section "modify" includes add to, omit from and otherwise alter.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 45

ACCOUNTING PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 29, line 25, leave out from "scheme" to end of line 34 and insert—

(a) from the CAA to a company,
(b) from a company to the CAA, or
(c) from a company to a company.'.

No. 96, in page 30, line 7, at end insert—
'(5A) If no value or amount appeared as mentioned in subsection (4) in the case of an asset or liability, the value or amount which may be stated by virtue of subsection (3) is the value or amount which the maker of the transfer scheme considers appropriate.'.

No. 97, in page 30, line 8, leave out—
'from time to time in any reserves'

and insert "in the opening accounts".
No. 98, in page 30, line 14, leave out "from time to time".

No. 99, in page 30, line 15, leave out "and any subsequent accounts".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 46

ACCOUNTING PROVISIONS: INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 95, in page 30, line 35, leave out—

'wholly owned by the CAA'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 47

ISSUE OF SECURITIES

Amendments made: No. 86, in page 31, line 4, after "is" insert—
'a company falling within subsection (2B).

(2) The Secretary of State may give a direction under this section to the transferee if when the direction is given it is a company falling within subsection (2B).

(2A) A direction under this section is one requiring the transferee—

(a) to issue to the appropriate person such securities of the transferee as are specified in the direction,
(b) to do so at a time or times (specified in the direction) when it is a company falling within subsection (2B), and
(c) to do so on such terms as are specified in the direction.

(2B) A company falls within this subsection if it is'.

No. 81, in page 31, line 9, leave out subsection (2).

No. 82, in page 31, line 21, leave out subsection (4).—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 48

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN SECURITIES

Amendments made: No. 27, in page 31, line 39, leave out from "may" to end of line 41 and insert—

(a) acquire securities of the transferee by subscription or purchase;
(b) acquire options to acquire or dispose of securities of the transferee.'.

No. 28, in page 31, line 42, leave out "rights" and insert "options".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 49

CROWN SHAREHOLDING

Amendments made: No. 454, in page 32, line 9, at end insert—
'(2A) The Secretary of State must ensure that the Crown does not dispose of any of the shares it holds in the designated company unless he is satisfied that a scheme is in place to ensure the completion of any project which—

(a) concerns the development of major facilities connected with air traffic services, and
(b) was commissioned before the coming into force of this section by the CAA or a company wholly owned by the CAA.'.

No. 455, in page 32, line 33, after "subsection", insert "(2A),".

No. 456, in page 32, line 35, after "subsection", insert "(2A),".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 51

GUARANTEES

Amendment made: No. 100, in page 33, line 40, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

'(4) In the case of a financial obligation incurred before the giving of a guarantee, it is immaterial when the obligation was incurred.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 54

SHADOW DIRECTORS

Amendments made: No. 101, in page 35, line 30, leave out from "company" to "and" in line 31 and insert "falling within subsection (1A),".

No. 102, in page 35, line 33, at end insert—

'(1A) A company falls within this subsection if it is—

(a) a company which is wholly owned by the Crown,


(b) a company which is wholly owned by the CAA, or
(b) a company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a company falling within paragraph (a) or (b).'.

No. 103, in page 35, line 35, after "be" insert—
', or becomes and continues to be,'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 56

SECURITIES TO BE ISSUED

Amendment made: No. 83, in page 38, line 7, leave out "or allotted".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 57

SECURITIES: OTHER PROVISIONS

Amendments made: No. 84, in page 38, line 16, after "section" insert "47 or".

No. 85, in page 38, line 24, after "section" insert "47 or".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 64

AIR NAVIGATION: DIRECTIONS

Amendments made: No. 375, in page 41, leave out line 43 and insert "a managed area.".

No. 376, in page 42, line 1, leave out subsection (2).

No. 377, in page 42, line 3, at end insert—
'(2A) No action is to lie in respect of a failure by the CAA
to perform a duty imposed on it by a direction under subsection (1); but that does not affect a right of action in respect of an act or omission which takes place in the course of performing the CAA's air navigation functions.'.

No. 378, in page 42, line 32, leave out subsection (8).—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 65

DIRECTIONS: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendments made: No. 379, in page 42, line 35, after "(6)" insert—
'or section (Directions: further provision)(3)'.

No. 127, in page 42, line 36, after "81" insert—
'or of an order under section (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.)'.

No. 380, in page 42, line 37, after "(6)" insert—
'or section (Directions: further provision)(3)'.

No. 128, in page 42, line 38, after "81" insert—
'or an order under section (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.)'.

No. 381, in page 43, line 1, after "64(6)" insert—
'or section (Directions: further provision)(3)'—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 66

CHARGES FOR SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 341, in page 43, line 12, after first "of' insert—
', or methods of calculating, the'.

No. 342, in page 43, line 15, after "aircraft" insert—
'(or descriptions of such operators and owners)'.

No. 343, in page 43, line 16, after "persons" insert "(or descriptions of persons)".

No. 344, in page 43, line 18, leave out "When it makes" and insert "On or after making".

No. 345, in page 43, line 18, leave out "also".

No. 346, in page 43, line 29, after "amounts" insert—
', or calculated in accordance with the specified methods,'.

No. 347, in page 43, line 42, at end insert—
'(10) The CAA must exercise its powers under this section in the manner it thinks best calculated to take account of international agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 67

PUBLICATION, COMMENCEMENT, AMENDMENT AND REVOCATION

Amendments made: No. 348, in page 44, line 1, leave out "(or specifications and stipulations)" and insert "or stipulations".

No. 349, in page 44, line 10, leave out from beginning to "does" in line 11 and insert "An amendment or revocation".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 68

SPECIFICATIONS: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendments made: No. 350, in page 44, line 20, after "amounts" insert "or methods".

No. 351, in page 44, line 21, after "amounts" insert "or methods".

No. 352, in page 44, line 23, after "amounts" insert "or methods".

No. 353, in page 44, line 25, after "amounts" insert "or methods".

No. 354, in page 44, line 35, at end insert—
'( ) Methods may be expressed by reference to such factors (including exchange rates between currencies) as the CAA thinks fit.
( ) A description of services may be expressed by reference to such factors (including the area in respect of which they are provided) as the CAA thinks fit.
( ) A description of operators and owners may be so general as to refer to all operators and owners.'.

No. 355, in page 44, line 36, leave out from beginning to second "are" in line 37 and insert—
'Owners and operators may be specified (or of a description specified) if the services concerned are available for the aircraft concerned, and it is immaterial whether or not the services'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 70

CHARGEABLE AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES

Amendments made: No. 356, in page 45, line 16, after "are" insert "air traffic services which—

(a) fall within subsection (1A), and
(b) are not excepted air traffic services (as defined in subsection (1B)).
(1A) These air traffic services fall within this subsection-'.

No. 357, in page 45, line 27, at end insert—
'(1B) These are excepted air traffic services—

(a) air traffic services provided by the owner or manager of an aerodrome or by his employee;


(b) air traffic services provided on behalf of the owner or manager of an aerodrome (other than a designated aerodrome) in circumstances where the person providing the services is not an employee of the owner or manager and they are provided under a contract or other arrangement made by the owner or manager and the person providing them.
(1C) A designated aerodrome is an aerodrome designated by the Secretary of State by order for the purposes of subsection (1B)(b).'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 71

RECORDS

Amendments made: No. 358, in page 45, line 38, leave out "officers" and insert "persons".

No. 359, in page 45, line 41, leave out "officers" and insert "persons".

No. 360, in page 46, line 1, leave out "officers" and insert "persons".

No. 361, in page 46, line 14, leave out subsection (6).

No. 362, in page 46, line 27, at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (4)—

(a) a reference to officers of the CAA includes a reference to persons authorised to act as such officers;
(b) a reference to officers of Eurocontrol includes a reference to persons authorised to act as such officers.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 73

DETENTION AND SALE

Amendments made: No. 363, in page 47, line 21, leave out—
'of which he is the operator when detention begins'
and insert "falling within subsection (1A)".

No. 364, in page 47, line 29, at end insert—
'(1A) These aircraft fall within this subsection—

(a) the aircraft in respect of which the charge was incurred (whether or not the person who is the operator of the aircraft when detention begins is the defaulter);
(b) any aircraft of which the defaulter is the operator when detention begins.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 74

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 365, in page 48, line 4, leave out—
'For the purposes of this Chapter'
and insert—
'(1) This section applies for the purposes of this Chapter.
(2)'.

No. 366, in page 48, line 5, at end insert—
'(3) An aerodrome is an aerodrome as defined in section 105(1) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982; and a manager of an aerodrome is a person who is in charge of it or holds a licence granted in respect of it by virtue of section 60 of that Act (Chicago Convention, regulation of air navigation etc).'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 75

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 287, in page 48, line 11, at end insert—
'(1A) For the purposes of this Chapter these expressions have the meanings given by section 39—

(a) aerodrome;
(b) licence;
(c) licence holder.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 81

CONTROL IN TIME OF HOSTILITIES ETC.

Amendments made: No. 134, in page 51, line 2, leave out "business" and insert "undertaking".

No. 129, in page 51, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—
'(5) In so far as a direction under this section conflicts with the requirements of an order under section (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.), the direction is to be disregarded.
(5A) In so far as a direction under this section conflicts—

(a) with the requirements of an enactment or instrument other than an order under section (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.), or
(b) with any duty which arises otherwise than under an enactment or instrument,
the requirements are or the duty is to be disregarded.'.

No. 135, in page 51, leave out lines 36 to 41.—
[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 82

SECTION 81: INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 136, in page 52, line 11, leave out "section 81" and insert—
'sections 81 and (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.)'.

No. 137, in page 52, line 16, leave out "business" and insert "undertaking".

No. 138, in page 52, line 26, leave out "business is a business" and insert "undertaking is an undertaking".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 89

ORDERS AND REGULATIONS

Amendments made: No. 87, in page 54, line 36, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "person exercising the power".

No. 139, in page 54, line 38, leave out from "instrument" to end of line 39.

No. 88, in page 54, line 39, at end insert—
'(3A) In subsections (1) and (3) references to a power to make an order are to a power of the Secretary of State; and in subsection (2) the reference to an order is to an order made by the Secretary of State.'.

No. 140, in page 54, line 39, at end insert—
'( ) A statutory instrument is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament if the instrument contains an order or regulations made by the Secretary of State under any provision of this Part other than section 49 or (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.).'.

No. 141, in page 54, line 40, leave out from beginning to "unless" in line 41 and insert—
'No order is to be made under section 49'.

No. 367, in page 55, line 10, leave out "70" and insert "70(2)".

No. 104, in page 55, line 11, at end insert—
'(10) If apart from this subsection a draft of an order under section 49 would be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 91

EXTENSION OUTSIDE UNITED KINGDOM

Amendments made: No. 142, in page 55, leave out lines 27 to 37.

No. 11, in page 55, line 41, at end insert—
'(6) In this section "modifications" includes additions, omissions and other alterations.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 1

AIR TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION ORDERS: GENERAL

Amendments made: No. 369, in page 140, line 22, leave out "and".

No. 370, in page 140, line 24, at end insert—
', and

(c) subsection (3)(d) has effect as if after "its property" there were inserted ", and no right of re-entry or forfeiture may be enforced against the company in respect of any land,".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 2

AIR TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION ORDERS: SCHEMES

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 144, line 38, leave out "or" and insert "after consulting".

No. 4, in page 144, line 40, leave out—
'or the CAA for approval the Secretary of State or the CAA'

and insert "for approval he".

No. 5, in page 145, line 30, leave out "and the CAA".

No. 6, in page 145, line 33, leave out—
'or, as the case may be, the CAA'.

No. 7, in page 145, line 34, leave out "and the CAA".

No. 8, in page 148, line 21, leave out "or the CAA".

No. 9, in page 148, line 22, leave out "or the CAA".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 3

AIR TRAFFIC ADMINISTRATION ORDERS: NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendments made: No. 371, in page 150, line 6, leave out "and".

No. 372, in page 150, line 8, at end insert—
', and

(c) paragraph (3)(d) has effect as if after "its property" there were inserted ", and no right of re-entry or forfeiture may be enforced against the company in respect of any land,".'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 6

TRANSFER SCHEMES

Amendments made: No. 105, in page 162, line 12, at end insert—
'; and each appropriate part must be taken to have been transferred to a transferee or retained by the transferor.'.

No. 124, in page 163, line 45, at end insert—
'(5) Sub-paragraph (6) applies if at the time a transfer scheme comes into force a transferor or transferee under the scheme is—

(a) a company which is wholly owned by the Crown;
(b) a company which is wholly owned by the CAA;
(c) a company which is a wholly owned subsidiary of a company falling within paragraph (a) or (b).
(6) Paragraphs 9 and 10 cease to apply in relation to the scheme concerned at the time when the transferor or any one of the transferees under the scheme ceases to be a company which falls within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of sub-paragraph (5).'.

No. 106, in page 168, line 1, leave out from "scheme" to end of line 4 and insert—
'any provision of an agreement to which the transferor was not a party, any statutory provision or any provisions of a document (other than an agreement) related to the property, rights or liabilities transferred to the transferee.'.

No. 107, in page 168, line 39, at end insert—
'(2A) From the coming into force of the scheme any person (other than the transferee) is to have the same rights, powers and remedies for ascertaining, perfecting or enforcing a right or liability transferred to the transferee under the scheme as he would have had if the right or liability had at all times been a right or liability of the transferee.'.

No. 108, in page 168, line 40, leave out "the transferee" and insert—
'which the transferee or any other person'.

No. 109, in page 169, line 10, leave out "by or against" and insert "against or by".

No. 110, in page 169, line 11, leave out "by or against" and insert "against or by".

No. 111, in page 171, line 11, after "person" insert "falling within sub-paragraph (3)".

No. 112, in page 171, line 13, leave out "a person or" and insert "another person or other".

No. 113, in page 171, line 24, at end insert—
'25.—(l) Paragraphs 12 to 18 and 20 to 24 have effect as if references to a transfer scheme or schemes included references to—

(a) an agreement or agreements under paragraph 9 or II;
(b) n agreement or agreements treated as made under paragraph 10.
(2) Where paragraph 14 has effect by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), the reference in paragraph 14(2)(b) to an agreement under paragraph 11 has effect as if it were a reference to a subsequent agreement under paragraph 11.
(3) Paragraph 19 has effect in relation to an agreement under paragraph II as it has effect in relation to an agreement made under paragraph 5 or 9.
(3) Where paragraphs 12 to 24 have effect in relation to an agreement under paragraph 11 as it has effect in relation to an agreement made under paragraph 5 or 9.
(4) Where paragraphs 12 to 24 have effect in relation to—

(a) an agreement under paragraph 9 or 11, or
(b) an agreement treated as made under paragraph 10,
references to a transferor or a transferee have effect as references to a transferor or a transferee under the agreement.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 7

TRANSFER SCHEMES: TAX

Amendments made: No. 114, in page 173, line 20, at end insert—
'(1A) This paragraph is not to prejudice paragraph 2.'.

No. 115, in page 173, line 42, leave out "and"

No. 116, in page 173, line 44, leave out—
'and at the time of acquisition'

and insert ", and
(c) the companies were associated companies at the time of acquisition.'.

No. 117, in page 174, line 18, leave out "and"

No. 118, in page 174, line 20, leave out—
'and at the time of acquisition'

and insert ", and
(c) the companies were associated companies at the time of acquisition.'.

No. 119, in page 174, line 49, leave out "and".

No. 120, in page 175, line 2, leave out—
'and at the time of acquisition'

and insert ", and

(c) the companies were associated companies at the time of acquisition.'.

No. 121, in page 178, line 22, at end insert—

'Agreements

20.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if the effect of—

(a) an agreement made under paragraph 9 or 11 of Schedule 6, or
(b) an agreement treated as made under paragraph 10 of Schedule 6,
is to modify the effect of a transfer scheme.

(2) This Schedule, the 1988 Act, the 1990 Act and the 1992 Act are to have effect as if—

(a) the scheme had been made as modified, and
(b) anything done by or in relation to the preceding holder had (so far as relating to the property, rights or liabilities affected by the modification) been done by or in relation to the subsequent holder.

(3) Sub-paragraph (4) applies to a disposal of an asset if the disposal—

(a) is effected in pursuance of an agreement made or treated as made under paragraph 9 or 10 of Schedule 6, and
(b) is the grant of a lease of land or the creation of other rights and liabilities over land.

(4) For the purposes of the 1992 Act the disposal is to be taken (in relation to the person to whom it is made as well as the person making it) to be for a consideration such that no gain or loss accrues to the person making it.

(5) Section 171(1) of the 1992 Act (provision in relation to disposal of assets from one member of a group of companies to another member of the group) does not apply if sub-paragraph (4) applies to the disposal in question.

(6) References in this paragraph to an agreement include references to the agreement as varied in accordance with a direction under paragraph 19(4) of Schedule 6.

(7) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) the preceding holder is the person who without the modification—

(a) became (under the transfer scheme concerned) entitled or subject to the property, rights or liabilities affected by the modification, or

(b) remained (despite the transfer scheme concerned) entitled or subject to the property, rights or liabilities affected by the modification,
as the case may be.

(8) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) the subsequent holder is the person who (in consequence of the modification) becomes, or resumes being, entitled or subject to the property, rights or liabilities affected by the modification.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 8

AMENDMENTS ABOUT AIR TRAFFIC

Amendments made: No. 130, in page 181, line 17, after "2000" insert—
'or of an order under section (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.) of that Act'.

No. 131, in page 181, line 21, after "2000" insert—
'or an order under section (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.)'. of that Act'.

No. 132, in page 181, line 30, after "2000" insert—
'or of an order under section (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.)'.

No. 133, in page 181, line 32, after "2000" insert—
'or an order under section (Orders for possession of aerodromes, etc.) of that Ace.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

New Clause 6

AIR QUALITY

'.—Where a local authority declares an air quality management area in accordance with section 83(1) of the Environment Act 1995, it may apply to the Secretary of State to direct the Highways Agency to take such measures as the authority has calculated to be effective in reducing air pollution, from specified roads administered by the Agency, in order to meet national air quality objectives within its area.'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
After the excitement of discussing the future of National Air Traffic Services and then the future of national security, we come to the important issue of air quality. All hon. Members will be aware of the concern in many quarters about the quality of our air. Some estimates, not least from the British Medical Association, tell us that as many as 24,000 people die unnecessarily each year because of air pollution caused predominantly by the exhaust fumes from vehicles on our roads.
Air quality and its improvement are of considerable importance in the effort not only to reduce the number of lives lost but to improve the quality of life for those millions of people who suffer from asthma, which is again associated very directly with fumes from vehicle exhausts.
In Committee, we were delighted that some positive announcements were made by the Government, not least by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill)—or "St. Reatham", as we came to know him. However, I was disappointed that he did not accept some of our amendments in respect of low emission zones or vehicle emission testing.
New clause 6 is another attempt to persuade the Government to move a little further. It would give local authorities a more direct way of getting the compliance of


the Highways Agency in measures to reduce air pollution. It would allow a local authority to apply to the Secretary of State to direct the Highways Agency to take any measures that the local authority considered to be effective in reducing air pollution from roads in its area that were administered by the Highways Agency.
In Committee, the Minister was quite positive about the broad principle of improving air quality, but there are a number of matters on which we seek further commitments. I have three questions of which I have given the Minister some advance notice, so I hope that he will respond positively.
The first relates specifically to the work that local authorities have to do in developing their local transport plans. Hon. Members will be aware that the plans have to be completed by the end of June. However, when local authorities draw up their plans they do not know whether the Government will require them to declare air quality management areas. As the Minister knows only too well, the deadline for those is not until October. If the Government subsequently require local authorities to introduce air quality management areas that might include a low emissions zone or roadside emission testing procedures, can the Minister confirm that the enforcement activities that will be required will be considered to be consistent with the aims of the local transport plan that will have to have been produced within the next few days?
Secondly, the Minister agreed that there would be some merit in extending the powers of traffic wardens so that they would have the ability to stop vehicles and require them to have their emissions tested. The Minister thought that that was a good idea in principle, but said that he did not want to agree to it without further consultation, particularly with the Motorists Forum. The Minister will be aware that that consultation has now been completed and that the forum has sent him a detailed report, so I hope that he can tell us when he expects to make a decision on whether to extend the powers of traffic wardens. In that regard, how will local authorities be expected to pay for emissions testing?
In Committee, the Minister helpfully agreed to extend the possible uses of moneys raised by congestion charging or workplace parking charging to offset some of the costs of emissions testing. However, some local authorities may choose not to use the powers in the Bill to introduce such charging. What assistance will the Government give to local authorities that wish to introduce more stringent emissions testing, but not the additional powers?
10.15 pm
On a number of occasions in Committee, Labour Members raised the point that when a local authority is required to develop strategies to reduce air pollution in its area, some of the measures that it would like to take are outside its control, not least because there is clear evidence that many emissions are likely to come from roads that are outside the local authority's control, especially trunk roads and motorways. If a local authority is required to reduce air pollution in its area, and yet has no control over the activities that take place on trunk roads or motorways, it is powerless to achieve the very objectives that the Government are rightly setting it.
What can the local authority do about that? The obvious step is to work in conjunction with the Highways Agency, which is in a position to do something. The agency has

said that it is anxious to work with local authorities in developing local transport plans and other strategies to reduce pollution and congestion. One would think that everything in the garden was rosy, and that the local authority could say to the Highways Agency, "We have a lot of problems with pollution from your roads. Will you do something about it?" One would hope that the answer would always be yes. The sad truth is that that is not always the case.
I know that the Minister is very well briefed on the problem in Sheffield. The local authority wanted to reduce pollution in the Tinsley area of Sheffield, but the main concern was pollution from the M 1. Sheffield council asked the Highways Agency for help in reducing the speed limit on that section of the motorway. The evidence is that such a move would reduce pollution and, as a by-product, reduce congestion. As the Minister knows, despite all the evidence of speed limit reductions on the M21 reducing congestion and pollution, the Highways Agency was unwilling to accede to Sheffield council's request.
The new clause would ensure that the local authority could at least say to the Secretary of State, "If you agree with our proposals, will you make it a requirement on the Highways Agency to enact them?" In that way, we would have joined-up thinking between local government, central Government and the Highways Agency. They would all work together with the aim of reducing congestion and air pollution.
The Government, and in particular the Minister, have given helpful indications of their intention to take this further. However, it is about time that the Government showed a real commitment to the issue by including in the Bill measures that would make this proposal a reality, rather than promising that that will happen at some time in the future.
I hope that the Government are prepared to accept the new clause.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I would like to make a few general observations about the new clause, moved so eloquently by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), before dealing with his specific questions.
The new clause would allow the Secretary of State to direct the Highways Agency—which I shall refer to as the HA—to take specific measures, such as reducing speed limits on trunk roads and motorways, with the aim of reducing air pollution within air quality management areas—which I shall refer to as AQMAs. Those are areas identified by the local authority where the air quality objectives, as prescribed in the air quality regulations 2000, are unlikely to be met.
Where an AQMA has been designated, the local authority has to draw up an action plan setting out the measures it intends to take in pursuit of air quality objectives. Where the actions needed to improve air quality in an AQMA are outside the local authority's responsibility, such as the case cited by the hon. Gentleman—the reduction of pollution from a trunk road and motorway—the local authority's plan would have to show what action would need to be taken by the HA.
I can fully understand the principles behind the new clause. Local authorities will no doubt have concerns about working towards achieving the air quality objectives


in their areas, especially where the action required is outside their control. I also agree that it is important for local authorities to have the full support of the HA when they designate their AQMAs and draw up action plans.
However, the provision is unnecessary. It would allow the Secretary of State to direct the HA to take action, including imposing slower speed limits on trunk roads or motorways within an air quality management area. However, the Secretary of State already has powers, under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, to regulate speed on trunk roads and motorways; that is carried out by the HA.
The HA already has a role to play within the local air quality management—or LAQM—process. First, it is a statutory consultee under schedule 11 of the Environment Act 1995. Local authorities therefore have to consult the agency on their air quality reviews and assessments, their proposals for AQMAs and their AQMA action plans. The HA has also provided a technical advice document for local authorities to use when carrying out the review and assessment process.
Secondly, the HA will have to work alongside those local authorities that designate air quality management areas covering trunk roads and motorways where traffic levels are the main contributors to local air pollution problems. The HA is committed to working with local authorities, and is encouraging local authorities to set up small working parties, which would include the relevant HA area and route managers, to identify any possible HA measures that may be taken in pursuit of the air quality objectives.
The HA could take several measures in pursuit of the air quality objectives in AQMAs. For example, better use could be made of the existing messaging service on motorway gantries, such as an advanced warning system of incidents on motorways. The HA is also working with transport operators to encourage people to use public transport.
On the specific issue of introducing slower speed limits on motorways, the HA is not opposed to that in principle, but would want to consider each case on its merits. In considering any such measures on its roads, the HA would have to have regard to the following criteria: safety; economy; integration; environment and accessibility.
All new trunk roads are now subject to environmental impact assessment in accordance with an EU Directive. That assessment includes considering air quality impacts evaluated under the air quality strategy. Local authorities are always consulted on any such proposals.
It is evident that the HA is already fully involved in the LAQM process; it will be working closely with local authorities during the action plan stage to identify action that it can take, bearing in mind the cost-effectiveness of those measures. Furthermore, should local authorities experience any difficulties in liaising with the HA, we would encourage them to approach my Department for further advice.
I therefore hope that the House will agree that, although the principles behind the new clause are to be welcomed, it would not be appropriate to accept it for the reasons that I have outlined. However, before I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it, I shall deal with the questions

that he raised. I am grateful for the notice that he has given me of the questions. That reflects the extremely close working relationship that we developed in Committee over many hours and months and the singular experience that he and I had in a lonely Westminster radio studio in the middle of the night on Thursday 4 May and Friday 5 May.
First, the hon. Gentleman asked whether I could confirm that, where air quality management areas are declared, enforcement activities will be considered to be consistent with the objectives of the authority's local transport plan. We acknowledge the fact that local authorities are having to complete their local transport plans before they have completed their reviews and assessments. The majority, however, should by now have a clear view of any major local air quality problems and their likely causes.
In our revised local air quality management statutory guidance entitled, "Air Quality and Transport", which was issued to local authorities on 6 March 2000, we have advised local authorities to ensure that their local transport plans contain all the air quality information that is available at the time, even if it is only provisional. Where possible, they should also reflect the likely designation of any AQMAs. It is important for local authorities to make sure that the LAQM is closely linked into the local transport process, particularly because the plans will be judged by their links to air quality issues.
Secondly, the hon. Gentleman asked about authorities that declare air quality management areas, which they are under a statutory obligation to do. He asked whether I would make additional funds available to authorities to fund the designation of AQMAs and the development and enforcement of statutory air quality action plans.
We recognise that local authorities' air quality management duties have financial implications. Since 1997–98, we have made provision in the annual revenue support grant settlement to assist the running costs associated with those duties, including undertaking the air quality reviews and assessments, designating any air quality management areas, drawing up action plans and undertaking public consultation exercises. At the same time, we introduced a programme of supplementary credit approvals—that is to say additional borrowing powers—to support the necessary capital expenditure on air quality reviews and assessments. More than £12 million has been awarded so far. Letters inviting SCA bids for expenditure in 2000–01 were sent to authorities in February.
On the development and enforcement of AQMA action plans, let me say that local authorities can use their existing powers and controls, such as local air pollution control, domestic smoke control, transport and land use planning, to implement their action plans for achieving the air quality objectives. Authorities may also, for example, wish to use the local transport plan process to bid for funding for transport projects that aim to reduce transport-related emissions and improve air quality. Local authorities declaring smoke control areas may apply for SCAs to cover the necessary costs of conversions in domestic premises.

Mr. Michael Jack: I have listened carefully to the Minister's arguments about the powers of local authorities. Will he help me on a point of detail? Do local authorities have any powers to promote public awareness


about the nature of the difference between old and new vehicles and about the contribution that newer vehicles with newer technology can make to improving overall air quality in a particular location?

Mr. Hill: I shall be entirely candid with the right hon. Gentleman. I am not sure that specific funding lines are available for that purpose, but every local authority has ample local financial resources. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, being a resident of Lambeth during his sojourn in the capital, many local authorities produce a range of publications in which they raise such issues with the public. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to such publicity.
10.30 pm
On funding for AQMAs, it is up to local authorities to ensure that the measures proposed in their plans are proportionate and cost-effective. Some of the actions needed to improve air quality may lie outside the local authority's responsibility, and it will have to work closely with other bodies, such as the Environment and Highways Agencies.
I turn now to the query of the hon. Member for Bath about the timing of conclusions on the Motorists' Forum's recommendations and the possible consultations on extending emissions tests and additional powers. I am grateful to the Motorists' Forum, which represents a broad range of interests, for its work on this matter. We are actively considering its recommendations and will announce our decisions in due course. My Home Office colleagues and I propose to consider additional powers.
The hon. Member for Bath raised the interesting case of Sheffield, where, last Thursday, Labour increased its share of the vote, but the Liberal Democrats increased their number of seats on the council. That is a consequence of the first-past-the-post system which the hon. Gentleman may not wholly deprecate.
I shall correct the version of events in Sheffield that the hon. Gentleman related to the House. Sheffield city council suggested to the Highways Agency that it should impose a 50 mph speed limit on the M1 where it passes through the Meadowhall area, which colleagues assure me is called Tinsley. Sheffield had calculated that if speed limits on the motorway were reduced from 80 mph to 50 mph where it passed through the city, there would be a significant reduction in pollution. The optimum speed for fuel consumption and emissions is at a constant speed between 40 and 50 mph.

Mr. Don Foster: Lest it be thought that a Transport Minister is not aware of the motorway speed limit, I give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to correct the record immediately because I am sure that when he said that the speed limit was 80 mph, he meant 70 mph.

Mr. Hill: It is a matter of public record that I am not a driver and have never learned to drive a car, so these matters are not always at the forefront of my mind, but I willingly accept the hon. Gentleman's correction. I shall now proceed to correct his version of events in Sheffield.
Contrary to the reports, the council's suggestion was not refused by the Highways Agency without consideration. However, the issue was not taken forward

after the agency pointed out that due to the severe congestion on the M1 in that area at peak periods, speeds were already down to less than 50 mph.
If speed reduction measures were to be introduced, we would need to be sure that the benefits of improved air quality would outweigh the economic impact of lower speed limits on journey times. Emissions from vehicles on the trunk road network are usually more significant for air quality in urban areas. Traffic on such roads is unlikely to be travelling at the legal speed limit—the point raised by the hon. Gentleman—and, especially in congested areas, will cause far more damage to the environment in terms of emissions than if it were travelling at the legal speed limit.
With those explanations and responses, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

Sir David Madel: Following on from the remarks made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and the Minister's saying that, if district councils or town councils want advice on how to interpret the air quality rules, he will be happy to provide it, I rise to raise a specific case in my constituency: that of the extremely congested A5 route through the centre of Dunstable.
The Minister will be aware of our lengthy campaign to get a bypass. As long as there is no bypass, air quality worsens. An additional cause for urgency is that the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has designated Luton and Dunstable as a growth area for housing; therefore, more people will be affected if the problem continues. Furthermore, without the provision of the bypass, 11 Dunstable schools, with hundreds of children, that lie close to the A5 will continue to endure the massive pollution generated by crawling, stop-start traffic. Similarly, many houses are affected by the problem. The benefit equation is, therefore, massively in favour of the bypass being built.
We have campaigned for many years to get the bypass built. I hope that the Minister will give a favourable hearing to councils if, following Thursday's elections, they approach him asking for advice on whether they can use air quality rules to hasten the building of the bypass. The Minister might wonder what last Thursday has to do with the new clause. The fact is that, during the district and town council elections in Dunstable, only the Conservative party campaigned for a full bypass; Labour and the Liberal Democrats have always been uncertain, even wobbly, on the issue. The result of Thursday's poll was that every single ward in Dunstable returned a Conservative district councillor; and a town council comprising 17 Labour and three Conservative councillors was transformed into one comprising 17 Conservatives and three Labour representatives. The people of Dunstable have given a clear and massive endorsement to an early start being made to the bypass, not least on grounds of air quality.
I make those points to the Minister in the hope that my words, and the council's representations, will cause him to look most favourably on starting a public inquiry into the bypass—not least after what has been said during this important debate about people being badly affected by poor air quality resulting from massive traffic congestion, which we certainly have in Dunstable.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: Conditions in my constituency are not untypical of those in many shire


county constituencies. There is no motorway, but many arterial routes and trunk roads traverse the constituency, and many of my constituents are affected by the traffic passing along those routes. The Minister will be familiar with the case, as, on behalf of my constituents, I have been a prolific letter writer on the subjects of speed and safety on the A41, the A49 and the A51, along with the less fast, but tighter and more difficult to negotiate green route that enters my constituency through Audlem in the southernmost part.
There is some debate about maps and whether many continental drivers of articulated lorries see on the map the green route, which appears to be the most direct route, and so come through my constituency, causing road congestion problems. However, my argument tonight focuses on the relationship between speed, air quality and new regulations that will permit lorry weights to be increased from 40 to 44 tonnes. There is real concern centring on arterial routes, such as the A49. Lorry drivers are equipped with mobile communications equipment, so by the time they go over the Thelwall viaduct on the M6 coming south, they know whether there is congestion around Birmingham. If there is, they leave the M6 and come down the A49. through Warrington and through the constituency of the hon. Member for Weaver Vale (Mr. Hall), before entering my constituency. The lorries then plough through my constituency before joining the M54.
The lorries do not follow direct motorway routes and, as we well know, air quality relates to lorries getting up to speed. On a non-motorway route, there are many bends and hills and, especially on the A49, sharp bends to negotiate. Lorries slow down, particularly owing to their added weight. They then have to get back up to speed; they are keen to travel, when possible, at the maximum speed permitted.
I hope that the Minister will take into account that issue in assessing the impact of the increase in lorry weights, given the nature of the roads on which lorries habitually travel partly because of congestion, particularly around Birmingham on the M6 leading up to the junction with the M5. As the many letters that the Minister and I have exchanged will testify, that has a real impact on my constituents.
I am not sure that the new clause would address the problem, but I listened carefully to the Minister. In assessing air quality measures relating to the speed and routing of lorries, it will be important to take into account measurements on lorries' ability to maintain speed. That in itself can lead to many more air pollutant quotas—however one measures it.
I urge the Minister to consider incentives for lorries once again to travel on the main motorway network, as that would address many of the concerns and alleviate many of the serious and legitimate worries of my constituents, many of whom live on those routes. Owing to the position of the original tracks, the houses are perilously close to the road, resulting in concern and danger.

Mr. Don Foster: If the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) studied new clause 6 closely, he would see that it would bring him a great deal of comfort. It would

enable his local authority to feel confident that it could work closely with the Highways Agency to consider the issues of speed on motorways in his area. If the Highways Agency were not prepared so to work with the local authority, there would be an opportunity to apply to the Secretary of State to direct that close co-operation.
I am absolutely delighted with the Minister's introductory remarks. I welcome his description of my remarks as eloquent. I was slightly taken aback by his description of our alleged close working relationship and somewhat surprised that he was prepared to refer to the time that we spent together late at night in a radio studio. He spent two hours defending the indefensible as further election disasters befell the party that he represents, while I was able to celebrate the success of my new and welcome hon. Friend the Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley).
The Minister acknowledged my generosity in giving him advance notice of some of the questions that I would ask and, indeed, some of the points that I would raise, including reference to the situation in Sheffield. It was clear that he was not even aware of the speed limits on motorways, let alone the part of Sheffield to which we referred—Tinsley.
The Minister was not as thoroughly briefed as one might have hoped because he suggested that the Highways Agency did not want to introduce the speed limit proposed by the council because of congestion in the area at peak times. I hope that, when he checks the information with which he was provided, he will note that Sheffield council suggested to the Highways Agency a variable speed limit, as on the M25, to take into account that very concern.
The problem is that, despite the fact that Sheffield council has made that proposition, there is still not an opportunity for it and the Highways Agency to work together. The council has nobody to whom it can turn to resolve that dispute, and that is why the new clause is so important.
In his response, the Minister chose to adopt the technique of using acronyms. I do not blame him for that, as it speeds up the debate. I am well aware that, when an LA is working on its LAQM, which of course is part of the Government's NAQS and, as the Minister rightly said, is related to the LA's LTP, and could include the option of an LEZ, although the Minister has not yet given approval for LEZs, the LA must have the full support of the HA, as the Minister said, not least if the LA goes on to develop an AQMA.
Without new clause 6, there is no guarantee that the LA will get the full support of the HA. The Minister suggested that, if the LA is unhappy, it should seek advice from the DETR. However, it is unlikely that anything will happen, as the case in Sheffield demonstrates so eloquently.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Foster: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, but time is pressing.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who produced a tour de force of acronyms. How would the new clause help constituents of mine, who live on a trunk road with a village on either side? The local


authority wants a bypass there. If the local authority declares it a special air quality management area, what will the Highways Agency do? Will it be forced to build the bypass, which it otherwise would not?

Mr. Foster: The hon. Gentleman refers to an AQMA, as I am sure that he knows. One way of improving his chances of success would be to turn it into an LEZ. He makes a fair point. There will be occasions when a local authority wants to achieve certain aims and wishes to get the support of the Highways Agency, but the Highways Agency disagrees. The new clause would allow the local authority to see whether the Secretary of State was willing to support it in that endeavour and, if so, to apply to him to instruct the Highways Agency to carry out the necessary work.
In the hon. Gentleman's example, it is unlikely that, even if the local authority wanted a bypass, the Secretary of State would give his approval and make it a requirement on the Highways Agency. However, there are many other cases—I gave one example in the Tinsley area of Sheffield—where the joint working of the local authority and the Highways Agency could have been strengthened by the new clause. I am disappointed that the Minister is not prepared to write it into the Bill. It is an important measure, and I hope that the House will not object too much if I press the motion to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 47, Noes 342.

Division No. 188]
[10.48 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Ballard, Jackie
Kirkwood, Archy


Beggs, Roy
Livsey, Richard


Brake, Tom
Llwyd, Elfyn


Brand, Dr Peter
Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert


Breed, Colin
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Moore, Michael


Burnett, John
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Burstow, Paul
Oaten, Mark


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Öpik, Lembit



Rendel, David


Chidgey, David
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Cotter, Brian
Sanders, Adrian


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Swinney, John


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Fearn, Ronnie
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Tyler, Paul


Gidley, Ms Sandra
Webb, Steve


Gorrie, Donald
Welsh, Andrew


Harris, Dr Evan
Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd


Harvey, Nick
Willis, Phil


Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Sir Robert Smith and


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Mr. Andrew Stunell.



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Ashton, Joe


Ainger, Nick
Atkins, Charlotte


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Banks, Tony


Alexander, Douglas
Barnes, Harry


Allen, Graham
Battle, John


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Bayley, Hugh


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Beard, Nigel




Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Denham, John


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Dismore, Andrew


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Dobbin, Jim


Bennett, Andrew F
Donohoe, Brian H


Bermingham, Gerald
Doran, Frank


Berry, Roger
Dowd, Jim


Best, Harold
Drew, David


Betts, Clive
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Blackman, Liz
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Blizzard, Bob
Edwards, Huw


Boateng, Rt Hon Paul
Efford, Clive


Borrow, David
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Ennis, Jeff


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Field, Rt Hon Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Fisher, Mark


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna


Browne, Desmond
Flint, Caroline


Buck, Ms Karen
Flynn, Paul


Burden, Richard
Follett, Barbara


Burgon, Colin
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Butler, Mrs Christine
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Foulkes, George


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Galbraith, Sam


Cann, Jamie
Gapes, Mike


Caplin, Ivor
Gardiner, Barry


Casale, Roger
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Caton, Martin
Gibson, Dr Ian


Cawsey, Ian
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Chaytor, David
Godsiff, Roger


Church, Ms Judith
Goggins, Paul


Clapham, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)



Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Grogan, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clelland, David
Hanson, David


Clwyd, Ann
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Coaker, Vernon
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coffey, Ms Ann
Healey, John


Coleman, Iain
Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)


Colman, Tony
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Connarty, Michael
Hepburn, Stephen


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Heppell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hesford, Stephen


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Corston, Jean
Hill, Keith


Cousins, Jim
Hinchliffe, David


Cox, Tom
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Cranston, Ross
Hoey, Kate


Crausby, David
Home Robertson, John


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Hood, Jimmy


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey


Cummings, John
Hope, Phil


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hopkins, Kelvin



Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Howells, Dr Kim


Dalyell, Tam
Hoyle, Lindsay


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Darvill, Keith
Humble, Mrs Joan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Hurst, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Hutton, John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Illsley, Eric


Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)



Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dawson, Hilton
Jamieson, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jenkins, Brian





Johnson Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Norris, Dan



O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
O'Hara, Eddie


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Keeble, Ms Sally
Palmer, Dr Nick


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Pearson, Ian


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Pendry, Tom


Kemp, Fraser
Perham, Ms Linda


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Pickthall, Colin


Khabra, Piara S
Pike, Peter L


Kidney, David
Plaskitt, James


Kilfoyle, Peter
Pollard, Kerry


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Pond, Chris


King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)
Pope, Greg


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Pound, Stephen


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Lawrence, Mrs Jackie
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Lepper, David
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Leslie, Christopher
Primarolo, Dawn


Levitt, Tom
Prosser, Gwyn


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Purchase, Ken


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen
Quinn, Lawrie


Linton, Martin
Radice, Rt Hon Giles


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Raynsford, Nick


Lock, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Love, Andrew
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


McCabe, Steve
Roche, Mrs Barbara


McCafferty, Ms Chris
Rooney, Terry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Macdonald, Calum
Rowlands, Ted


McDonnell, John
Roy, Frank


McFall, John
Ruane, Chris


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Ruddock, Joan


McIsaac, Shona
Ryan, Ms Joan


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Sarwar, Mohammad


Mackinlay, Andrew
Sawford, Phil


McNulty, Tony
Sedgemore, Brian


MacShane, Denis
Sheerman, Barry


Mactaggart, Fiona
Shipley, Ms Debra


McWalter, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McWilliam, John
Singh, Marsha


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Soley, Clive


Merron, Gillian
Southworth, Ms Helen


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Squire, Ms Rachel


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Steinberg, Gerry


Miller, Andrew
Stevenson, George


Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stinchcombe, Paul


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Motley, Elliot
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stringer, Graham



Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Ms Dan (Stockton S)


Mudie, George
Taylor, David (NW Leics)


Mullin, Chris
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Timms, Stephen




Tipping, Paddy
Wicks, Malcolm


Todd, Mark
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Touhig, Don


Trickett, Jon
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Truswell, Paul
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)
Wills, Michael


Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)
Winnick, David


Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)
Wood, Mike


Turner, Neil (Wigan)
Woolas, Phil


Twigg, Derek (Halton)
Worthington, Tony


Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Tynan, Bill
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Vaz, Keith
Wyatt Derek


Ward, Ms Claire


Wareing, Robert N
Tellers for the Noes:


Watts, David
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Whitehead, Dr Alan
Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

Question accordingly negative.

New Clause 14

COMPETITION TEST FOR EXERCISE OF BUS FUNCTIONS

'. Schedule (Competition test for exercise of bus functions) contains provision applying a competition test in relation to the exercise of functions relating to quality partnership schemes, ticketing schemes and subsidised local services.'.—[Mr. Hill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 301.

Amendment No. 143, in clause 110, page 66, line 23, at end insert—
'(5) Local services provided under a quality contract scheme made in accordance with section 108 shall be exempt from the provisions of the Competition Act 1998.'.

Government amendments Nos. 303 to 306 and Government new schedule 1.

Mr. Hill: New clause 14 brings us to a topic that has excited many commentators in connection with our bus policy proposals, and occupied the Standing Committee more than once: competition.
We undertook to table amendments on Report to deal with competition issues as they affect the three key local authority functions introduced or enhanced by the Bill: quality partnerships, ticketing schemes and bus subsidy contracts, including frequency enhancements. The new clause and amendments were prepared in full consultation with the competition authorities, the Office of Fair Trading and the Department of Trade and Industry. I am sorry not to have been able to give the House a little more time to consider them, but they do what we said they would do.
The new clause and amendments achieve three things. First, they provide a special tailor-made regime for the exercise of such powers—rather than the Competition Act 1998, in case that Act might be thought to apply. I think that that concerned Members at an earlier stage. Secondly, they allow a bus operator, for example, to go to the Director General of Fair Trading if that operator thinks that the local authority's powers have been used unfairly. Thirdly—this is, perhaps, the most important point—


they require the Office of Fair Trading to consider not just any effect that there might be on competition but the wider public interest, including not only bus users but the community in general. For that purpose, we have included special public interest provisions tailored to the circumstances of bus operations, and the sort of benefits that local authorities will legitimately want to achieve through their use of bus powers. Those include better vehicles or facilities, service improvements and reducing or limiting traffic congestion, noise or air pollution. I hope that hon. Members will agree that those special provisions are much more appropriate and helpful to local authorities and to the public than anything in the Competition Act.

Valerie Davey: Does my hon. Friend agree that the specific new amendments and the way in which the Government are now handling the matter are of particular value in a situation such as that in Bristol, where the bus company has a virtual monopoly, where the public good, as he has indicated, is of special concern to the local authority and the strengthening of local authority's power is to the benefit of the passenger?

Mr. Hill: I understand my hon. Friend's broad point, but the thrust of the new provisions is not precisely in the direction that she has described. They are designed to deal with possible allegations or suspicions of anti-competitive practices—for example, when ticketing arrangements are introduced—and to create some protection for the public interest where those measures are introduced, so I do not think that they quite attain the objectives that she may hope they do.
The provisions that I have outlined are in paragraph 2 of the new schedule. That paragraph is the most important part of the provision; otherwise, the schedule is essentially procedural. It provides for local authorities or bus operators to apply to the OFT for a decision—the OFT is, of course, the Office of Fair Trading, but I think that that is a reasonably familiar acronym, which I propose to persist with—or the OFT can look at a case itself if it sees fit.
The OFT must publish any decisions, with reasons, so that people know where they stand. Properly, the OFT is required to consult interested parties before finalising a decision if it thinks that the competition test is not met. The OFT has powers of direction once a decision has been made, although I am sure that in the vast majority of cases any necessary solutions will be worked out voluntarily.
The schedule contains provisions for the OFT to obtain information. It merely echoes provisions in other such legislation and contains confidentiality safeguards. Again, I would be surprised if those were much needed in practice, but I hope that the House will agree that it would not be right if bus operators were able to get together at the expense of the public and to frustrate OFT inquiries.
In addition to the schedule, there are some other amendments. They are mostly technical, but also helpful. For example, amendments Nos. 301 and 304 provide that reducing traffic congestion can be a valid reason for a local authority to bring forward a quality partnership scheme, or to subsidise a bus service. That ensures consistency with the wording of the competition test in paragraph 3 of the new schedule.
Amendment No. 303 provides that a local authority can vary a ticketing scheme, rather than simply revoke it, as in the Bill at present. Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 are

consequential drafting changes to provisions in the Transport Act 1985 to make "economy, efficiency and effectiveness"—the best value criteria—the factors that local authorities must take into account in promoting the use of public transport generally in their areas, thus ensuring consistency with their obligations in reaction to bus subsidies in clause 131.
Opposition amendment No. 143 seeks to make bus services provided under quality contract schemes exempt from the Competition Act. It is substantially the same as an amendment that was debated in Committee. As we made clear on that occasion, the amendment seems to be wholly unnecessary.
Once a quality contract scheme has been introduced, there is by definition no longer a competitive situation for bus operations. All local services within the quality contract area, unless exempted, will be operated under contract to the local authority. The Competition Act will therefore not apply.
We further made the point that, if a quality contract were otherwise caught by section 2 of the Competition Act, it would be excluded by virtue of paragraph 5 of schedule 3 to the Act, which states that conduct engaged in to comply with a legal requirement is exempted from the Competition Act. Either way, therefore, we see no need to make further provision.
I hope that my explanation of the Government amendments is helpful to the House. I hope, too, that hon. Members will feel that these promised amendments will help all concerned by providing a special competition regime that also takes proper account of the public interest objectives that local authorities can—indeed, should—have in the use of their powers.
I know that competition legislation has been of concern to many hon. Members. It may therefore also help the House if I add that, yesterday, the OFT sent out consultation drafts of the block exemption. The covering letter was sent to the rail industry as well as to the bus industry trade association and local government and underlined the point that the proposed block exemption will apply to multi-modal schemes, not only to the bus industry.
We believe that that is good news, and I am sure that it will be welcomed by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins), who has already made representations on behalf of the Manchester passenger transport executive. As I predicted in Committee, the OFT is taking forward a block exemption for bus and train ticketing schemes under the 1998 Act. The OFT has listened to representations. I hope that the House will find that reassuring.

Mr. Syms: In Committee, we spent considerable time discussing competition law. We did so because, if we do not get that matter right, the Bill's entire section on buses will not work. Representations on the Bill have been made by the bus companies, which are concerned that they will have to contend with both a competition regime—particularly under the Competition Act 1998, which came into force on 1 March and made things difficult for them—and the Transport Bill. The companies essentially felt that they were being caught between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
The situation in Committee was not a happy one, primarily because we felt that the legislation would not work. I believe that the proposed regime will be helpful, and therefore welcome the Government's new clause, new schedule and amendments in this group. Nevertheless, the previous muddle was of the Government's own making, with two Departments going in two slightly different directions. The Local Government Association was very concerned about that muddle and made representations on it to the DETR.
The Opposition would like to see the quality partnership schemes work. For most people in the United Kingdom, buses are their only public transport alternative. The new regime will improve their chance of having such an alternative.
New clause 14 has been tabled at a relatively late stage in our consideration of the Bill. Have the bus companies been consulted on it? If so, did they have any comments? I am not an expert on buses—although I am a transport spokesman—but I am sure that the bus companies, particularly many of the major ones, have lawyers. As the 1998 Act provides for quite draconian ways in which company directors can be fined if they are anticompetitive, I am perfectly sure that those companies will wish to be consulted on the provision and have their views considered. If they have not been consulted, I hope that the Minister will reassure us that they will be before the Bill is sent to the other place. They should be consulted.
Have local authorities who have raised the competition issue directly with the Government been consulted on the proposed regime? Local authorities and bus companies are vital to operation of the Government's proposed regime. If they are happy with it, we would be happy.
11.15 pm
New clause 14 is sensible, and I am sure that the comprehensive new schedule I will meet the task. However, because of the conflict between two Departments, we have—as the Minister said—a tailor-made regime which I hope is robust.
The Minister said that the Office of Fair Trading has issued guidance on block exemptions. He said also that bus operators could go to the Director General of Fair Trading for directions, but there was no mention of the cost of doing so. Will there be such a cost on a company? If so, the House ought to be told today.
We welcome the Government's proposals and hope that there is the widest possible consultation. Bus operators must feel that they can move forward with quality partnerships and quality contracts in the knowledge that the regime will work and is robust. We wish the Government well on this because the travelling public want better services. The industry and local government want a degree of certainty that the new regime will work.

Mr. Don Foster: Like the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), I welcome the Government's proposals. The House will be aware that our amendment No. 143 would have much the same effect as the one proposed by the Government, but it is considerably less comprehensive.
I am disappointed that it has taken such a long time for the Government to come forward with proposals. In Committee on 29 February, the Minister told us that

parliamentary counsel was busily drafting amendments in this regard. It has taken two and a half months for parliamentary counsel to bring this forward. I hope that time will show that it was worth the wait.
I am delighted that, at long last, we will begin to have a solution to a problem that was raised by many members of the Committee. The Minister was unwilling to accept a Liberal Democrat proposal that fares and frequency should be included in quality partnerships and quality contracts. The Minister agreed that it would be possible for a local authority working with transport companies in its area to produce an agreement on fares and frequencies, but that that would have to lie outside, but alongside, the statutory quality partnership or quality contract.
I understand that these amendments refer specifically to new quality partnerships and quality contracts, and do not refer to the non-statutory arrangements that may be made by local authorities with their various transport providers in the area. The Minister was asked about those non-statutory arrangements between a local authority and the transport providers in an area, and whether or not they could fall foul of the Competition Act. He said:
I cannot give…that assurance. Such timetable agreements may or may not be in breach of the competition rules, but it is for the OFT to make inquiries into that and to come to its own decisions. Since such agreements do not form part of the Bill, it is hardly for me to make a judgment on them.—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 February 2000; c. 794.]
I am sure that the House will recognise that a large number of the measures that a local authority may wish to take with transport providers in its area will refer specifically to fares and frequency. Indeed, on many occasions in Committee reference was made to the competition in some parts of the country whereby one bus company operates a particular timetable and another bus company introduces a service just a few minutes earlier to try to grab the passengers from the first company. Yet we know from experience that when two bus companies have agreed a timetable—one going on the hour and the other going on the half hour, for example—they have fallen foul of the Competition Act and the current work of the OFT. We hoped that the Minister would table an amendment that brought some comfort to local authorities and bus companies that any such arrangements that they sought to introduce to the benefit of passengers in a particular area would not fall foul of the Competition Act.
I seek some reassurance from the Minister that the provisions in the amendment, the new clause and the new schedule will ensure that arrangements in respect of fares and frequency will be treated in the same way as the other matters covered by the proposed provisions. I am delighted that we are making progress, but I am not convinced that all the issues have yet been covered.
Finally, in some parts of the country, including my constituency, local authorities wish to develop voluntary agreements with bus companies without introducing a quality partnership agreement. In some circumstances, particularly when fares and frequency are central issues, it is better to have a voluntary agreement that covers fares and frequency among other issues, rather than making them part of the statutory quality partnership. Again, I would be grateful if the Minister could give some comfort to local authorities such as Bath and North East Somerset council, which is trying to develop a partnership in respect of that dreadful subject that we discussed in


Committee—tour buses—that there will be some exemptions from the draconian approach adopted by the Office of Fair Trading.

Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I join my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) and other hon. Members in welcoming the Government's proposals. It might be helpful if I put in context my own experience of the operation of competition. Before being elected to the House I was, for my sins—I have many sins—the compliance officer in a large public company in the construction industry. I am conscious of the presence of the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is equally familiar with the construction industry, which is an important example of where the statutory competition provisions bite and are effective or not effective and which shows their effect on businesses and the directors of companies.
It is well known that in respect of a commodity product where one competitor is indistinguishable from another, there is every incentive—and good commercial reasons—to try to create a monopoly, albeit a small one in terms of the commercial market. That is the only way to secure the proper reward by price against the investment that has been put in. Of course, the market and consumers are always anxious for that not to happen. A prime example is the ready-mixed concrete industry, with which I am very familiar. There might be three ready-mixed concrete plants in towns in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, each desperately trying to occupy the five-mile radius—much further, and the stuff would set in the back of lorry—and create some form of commanding market presence to justify itself. I am talking about radial monopolies. There was an incentive, at times—wholly to be condemned—to carve up the market. There have been court cases demonstrating that.
This proposal is a way of derogating from the application of the recently introduced statutory requirements on competition, which I fully support—we shall wait to see how they work out in practice, having so recently been implemented. This is lineal monopoly behaviour. If we combine radial and lineal monopolies, this is a first in terms of the way in which competition and marketplace domination are defined.
As I said, I welcome the Government's approach to quality partnerships, contracts and the need to address through routes and ticketing so that we can provide for all our constituents a proper public service recognition, while at the same time encouraging the investment that follows a proper commercial base for bus services. I was concerned, however, when the Minister referred to a special competition regime that can be used by local authorities. Would that one day extend to taxi services? Given the way in which the Post Office has harnessed some of the quasi-bus services, to what extent does that potential derogation apply? It is important to have that clarified.
There is an element of wanting to have it both ways. The Government talk about joined-up government, but they are conscious that what the Department of Trade and Industry is producing is not quite so joined-up, as far as the Bill is concerned, as they might like.
Directors face enormous difficulties and anxieties if they are accused of anti-competitive behaviour under increasingly rigorous statutory requirements. I fully

understand the derogation that is sought, and the way in which the Government want to test it through the new schedule. However, I am not reassured, given where such provisions might lead in other areas of commercial activity, and I look to the Minister for reassurance. There is a special public interest provision in the new schedule. Many areas, as well as buses and trains, might be considered a special public interest. For instance, if the Ministry of Defence commissioned a new structure for its service, that would clearly be in the public interest. When it comes to the ready-mixed concrete to be supplied, under this potential precedent, would the Competition Act 1998, implemented on 1 March this year, be prayed in aid in order to seek a derogation?
Of course, I am postulating. This is hypothetical. It is none the less important, not least because I do not claim to be an expert in this field, other than through experience. However, we all know that an army of lawyers is out there, ready to charge horrendous fees for giving advice. That is a major cost on businesses, which feeds through to the consumer. Therefore, we have an interest in seeking to bring forward relevant and appropriate legislation.
My concern is that this provision—even though it is well intentioned—could be prayed in aid and used as a precedent in relation to unforeseen activities in other commercial marketplaces. I worry that it would undermine the 1998 Act and measures introduced by another Department.

Mr. Peter Snape: I declare an interest: I am the chairman of a bus company—Travel West Midlands, part of the National Express group.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) must forgive me for not following him down the interesting path that he took. The Standing Committee might have benefited from his expertise; our proceedings would have been considerably enlivened by a debate on the difference between a radial and a linear monopoly. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) and I would have immediately bowed out of that discussion on the grounds of lack of technical knowledge.
However, the hon. Member for Eddisbury made a relevant point on a matter that gave rise to much debate in Committee—as the hon. Member for Bath pointed out. The fundamental problem is that competition and integration do not make easy bedfellows. Although we all applaud the Government's intention of trying to integrate transport services in general and bus services in particular, it would be all too easy—as the hon. Member for Eddisbury reminds us—for that intention to fall foul of the Competition Act 1998.
That point deserves the attention of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I know that he will approach it with his customary courtesy and diligence. We need to know exactly where bus companies and local authorities stand vis-a-vis the 1998 Act, if we are to achieve the genuine integration that the Government want.
I suspect that the Conservatives are quite relaxed about that matter these days. The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms), who spoke for the Opposition, was certainly extremely relaxed on the matter in Committee—as he was this evening.
When we discussed in Committee co-operation between local authorities and bus companies, I pointed out that we all want such voluntary agreements to be established and to work. The bus industry as a whole did not want fares and frequencies—for example—to become part of any statutory partnership. The industry feels that such fundamental matters, which have a direct, bottom-line impact, are best decided by the companies, although they—especially my own company—would seek agreement with the relevant local authority.
However, we need some reassurance that, having sought such agreement, we should not be hauled off to the authorities under the Competition Act. As the hon. Member for Eddisbury reminds us, the penalties faced by directors are—rightly—somewhat draconian. I declare another interest: I have no particular desire to be dragged off and arraigned if we came to a voluntary agreement with the local authorities and it fell foul of the Act. The question is relevant and well worth debate.
Furthermore, if my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary can answer that other question—on the difference between a linear and a radial monopoly—the House will be grateful to him. If we had held such a debate in Committee, not only might our deliberations have been enlivened, but our knowledge of such matters would have been considerably enhanced by the guidance of the hon. Member for Eddisbury on what is, I am sure, an enormously important difference—albeit one that I have never heard put to the test. From my long experience of working with my hon. Friend, I know that he is extraordinarily well educated, so he is in a better position than any other Member here to answer that vital question.

Mr. Peter Luff: I have no interest to declare except to say that, for three happy years from 1982 to 1985, I advised the Confederation of British Road Passenger Transport, which subsequently became known as the Bus and Coach Council. At that time, we agonised about many of the issues that have been debated tonight.
I shall speak to new schedule 1 and amendment No. 306. I listened carefully to the Minister's remarks, but I did not hear him address amendment No. 306. If he did and I missed it, I apologise to him. The amendment inevitably caught my eye because it would amend section 63(7) of the Transport Act 1985 by replacing the words from "so to conduct" to the end of the subsection with the words
to have regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
I thought that our whole political lives were designed to have regard to
a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness
so the amendment is motherhood and apple pie written into statute law. I can think of many clichés with which one would wish to amend Acts of Parliament. Will the Minister explain exactly what the amendment will do? It looks splendid, impossible to argue with—and therefore, I am afraid, profoundly suspicious.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) was charitable to the Government about new schedule 1. It is longer than many Acts of Parliament; it is a huge

provision that contains many fascinating and surprising ideas. They are not necessarily wrong, but they are surprising.
Paragraph 16(1) of the new schedule states:
The Director may charge fees in connection with the exercise by him of any of his functions under this Schedule.
What are those fees and how much will they involve?
My hon. Friend's points were germane. What consultation has taken place? Why does paragraph 15 give the Director General of Fair Trading such an absolute defence on defamation? That provision appears to be very generous. Why does paragraph 9 exempt information
made for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any function of the European Commission in respect of Community law about competition?
That is extraordinary enough, but why does paragraph 4 need to spell it out. It says:
In determining an application made under paragraph 3, the Director must take into account any representations made to him about the application.
I thought that he would always take into account such representations. It is a long and complex new schedule.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: Has my hon. Friend seen paragraph 13 of the new schedule, which gives the director general the extraordinary power to take an authority that fails to comply with his orders "without reasonable excuse"—whatever that may mean—to the High Court? Presumably, if the authority fails to appear, it could be in contempt of the High Court. That is draconian at the very least.

Mr. Luff: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. The new schedule may meet with the approval of the industry, local authorities and all those involved, but it is an exceptionally long schedule to put into an exceptionally long Bill at this late stage. The Minister will need to reassure us that the consultations that I hope he has had with those who will be affected by the new schedule have produced a favourable result.

Mr. Hill: I take it that there are no more bidders in the debate.
I express my gratitude to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) for his warm welcome for new clause 14 and to the official spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), for what was, I suspect, his slightly less warm welcome. All the offers made were appreciated.
The hon. Member for Poole asked two questions. First, he asked about consultation with bus operators and local authorities. The new clause and the amendments will do what we said in Committee that they would do. It goes without saying that we keep in touch with the bus industry and local government. I was careful to explain our intentions at some length in Committee, so that the industry and local authorities could make representations if they so wished. We have certainly explained our intentions to the bus industry.
The hon. Gentleman also pressed me on the issue of fees for applications for decisions on the new competition test. Paragraph 16 of the new schedule gives the director general a power to charge fees in connection with the exercise of any of his new powers. That would include,


for example, a fee for an application made to him under paragraph 3 of the schedule about whether the new competition test was met in any given case. The schedule contains no special procedure for setting fees. Any fees charged will be at the director general's discretion, and it will be open to him to choose not to set a fee in particular cases if he considers it appropriate.
I turn now to the remarks of the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). I nearly called him the hon. Member for Wyre Piddle because of his proper obsession with that place—I shall return to the issue of obsessions later. He also referred to fees set by the director general. I imagine that they would be set at a level that takes into account the resources involved in determining a particular case. He made one or two suggestions and complained about the length of the new schedule. We have tried to make it as comprehensive as possible, and we are being damned for its length, but I dare say that if it had been short, we would have been damned for its brevity. I shall, in due course, return to other points made by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Bath raised the status of fare and frequency arrangements that are not included in the quality partnerships. In Committee, we took to describing those arrangements as non-statutory codicils to quality partnerships. This point was also raised by my hon. Friend, and guru, the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). The hon. Member for Bath is correct: the new schedule does not apply to non-statutory agreements. The position is as I have stated it before, but I know that the Office of Fair Trading is always willing to talk constructively to anybody who wants to put proposals to it. It is not for me to speculate on particular cases.
I fear that the hon. Gentleman also mentioned quality partnership arrangements in connection with tour buses. I thought that we would be lucky if we got through the proceedings without a reference to tour buses or Eurocontrol. We have heard enough of both, particularly the latter, this evening. I say to the hon. Gentleman and his local authority of Bath and North East Somerset that we should remember that many non-statutory quality partnerships have already been successfully established, and the OFT has not objected. The track record is by no means completely unhappy. If Bath and North East Somerset council is in doubt, I offer it the advice, via the hon. Gentleman, that the OFT is always ready to talk.

Mr. Don Foster: The Minister is being helpful, but the point is that in new schedule 1 the Government argue that it must be demonstrated that non-statutory partnerships would secure benefits to the service users, and reduce or limit congestion and noise or air pollution. If similar benefits accrue from a non-statutory quality partnership, does the Minister expect that the OFT will be likely to approve such an arrangement?

Mr. Hill: I understand the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point, but I have to tell him that it is not appropriate for me to speculate at the Dispatch Box on a matter of that nature. It is a sensitive matter and Ministers have to be wary; it is certainly not a subject that I intend to explore, especially at this late stage in our proceedings.
The hon. Member for Eddisbury, who is indeed a most prolific correspondent on behalf of his constituents, warned of the dangers and temptations of monopolies,

both linear and radial. As he acknowledged, the new clause is designed to enable us to strike a delicate balance between best value in transport provision and competition requirements. Again, it is not for me to speculate about the extent to which these provisions might act as a precedent for other arrangements. At one point, he spoke about the Ministry of Defence and about poured concrete—a subject of which I confess complete ignorance.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the special competition regime would apply to taxi services. The short answer is no; the new clause is solely about buses. The slightly longer answer is that in certain circumstances, a taxi can run as a bus service; however, I shall spare the hon. Gentleman an exposition of taxi law—a subject of immense complexity with which I have to wrestle constantly. The amendment is deliberately designed to address bus issues alone, and I make no apology for its exclusivity, even in respect of ready-mixed concrete. I do not accept that the proposals pose any threat to the Competition Act 1998.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East raised the question of agreements between companies. As I have said, the most important thing is to consult the OFT. The key issue is the consumer: in consumers' interests, the OFT—indeed, all of us—should be wary of cosy deals between operators, which might be to their advantage and not to that of passengers. I am sure that my hon. Friend would not countenance such deals, but we must not forget the possibility of their arising and we must always remember that the consumer has priority.

Mr. Snape: Will my hon. Friend not utter a word of encouragement? I understand the dilemma in which he finds himself: on the one hand, the Government want to encourage local authorities and bus operators to come to voluntary agreements; on the other hand, he appears to want to wash his hands of the consequences of such agreements. However, what about saying to the OFT that such agreements should be encouraged, if they are in the interests of the consumer? If no such action is taken, bus companies are likely not to bother with such agreements, lest they become mired in difficulties.

Mr. Hill: It is not unreasonable to suggest that the bus companies might take an initiative in the matter. Having said that, I am sure that those in the OFT will read very carefully my hon. Friend's remarks in Hansard and reflect on them.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has got the Minister on the ropes. The Minister must respond to him. It cannot be right for the Minister to ask the House to support him, please, in the amendments that get round the Competition Act because, by referring to statutory quality partnerships and quality contracts, they will ensure benefits for service users and will limit congestion, noise or air pollution, yet when people want to do so on a voluntary, non-statutory basis, for him to say, "It's nothing to do with me, Guy. That is dangerous territory; I shouldn't enter into it." Why should he not enter such territory?

Mr. Hill: I am reminded of my oft-quoted remark that there is nothing more deadly than the friendly intervention. I shall not be tempted along that path.
We should not forget that the Competition Act has a public interest provision—if I can call it that—albeit in more general, less tailor-made terms than the proposed new schedule. Section 9 is an example.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: Aha—the hon. Gentleman, who is not notorious for his interest in bus matters, obviously spots a potential vulnerability and leaps to his feet.

Mr. Jenkin: I am most interested in these bus matters.
I just wanted to inquire, on an entirely friendly basis, how happy the Minister's colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry are with the proposed arrangements.

Mr. Hill: That is an easy one. I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for a genuinely friendly intervention. I assure him that these novel and important provisions have been drawn up in complete consultation and collaboration with the DTI, which is entirely happy with them.
I hasten on to deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire. He talked about special provisions in what he complained was a long and complex new schedule, but the powers in the new schedule are less dramatic than they seem. It is a matter simply of getting the procedures right; they have precedents. The OFT needs fall-back powers in the event of people obstructing it, but we very much doubt whether they will be needed. We hope that they will not, but it is right for legislation to cover a wide range of circumstances. There is protection, for example, for commercially sensitive information in paragraphs (8) and (9).
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire referred to amendment No. 306. Although I mentioned it in my opening remarks, I can imagine that the general interest in my speech was so intense that he did not entirely pick up my comments. Amendments Nos. 305 and 306 ensure consistency with clause 131(2). Amendment No. 306 introduces the best value test of economy, efficiency and effectiveness, which reads across to the generality of local government legislation. It offers alternative wording to the phrase "not to inhibit competition" in the Transport Act 1985, which is felt to be less helpful than the new formulation. It essentially links current thinking about the criteria that ought to be adopted by local authorities in their policies. With that very comprehensive response to the debate, I commend the new clause to the House

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 8

POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION ABOUT LOCAL SERVICES

'.—(1) A local transport authority may, in connection with the exercise of any of its functions relating to public transport, require an operator of local services to provide it with any information relating to the matters specified in subsection (2) which is in his possession or control.

(2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are—?

(a) the total number of journeys undertaken by passengers on the local services operated by the operator in the authority's area or any part of its area,

(b) the structure of fares for those journeys, and
(c) the total distance covered by vehicles used by him in operating those local services.

(3) The operator may be required to provide the information in any form in which, having regard to the manner in which the information is kept, it is reasonable to expect him to provide it.

(4) No information which—

(a) has been provided under this section, or provided together with information so provided, and
(b) relates to the affairs of an individual or to a particular business,
shall be disclosed during the lifetime of the individual or while the business continues to be carried on.

(5) But subsection (4) does not apply to a disclosure made—

(a) with the consent of the individual or the person for the time being carrying on the business,
(b) in connection with the investigation of crime or for the purposes of criminal proceedings,
(c) for the purposes of civil proceedings brought by virtue of this Act or the Transport Act 1985, or
(d) in order to comply with the order of a court or tribunal.

(6) A person who discloses information in contravention of subsection (4) is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Hill.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Hill: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause was tabled in response to a matter that we discussed in Committee on 17 February on a Liberal Democrat amendment aimed at allowing access by local authorities to reasonable statistical information held by bus operators. We expressed sympathy with the aims of the amendment and undertook to introduce a suitably worded new clause, which I am happy to do.
The new clause should meet all the points raised in Committee. It will give a local transport authority, in the exercise of any of its public transport functions, power to require bus operators to supply information that they hold. The information may relate to passenger journeys, bus mileage and fare structures in respect of journeys throughout the area or part of the area. It may be requested in any form, subject to a test of reasonableness, and it may not be disclosed, other than with consent or in connection with civil or criminal proceedings, contravention being subject to a fine of up to level 5 on the standard scale.
I hope that the House will agree that the new clause is a welcome improvement to the Bill. It will ensure that authorities, in support of their functions relating to local transport plans and bus strategies, but also more generally—for example, in the context of reporting on bus services under the local government best value regime—have access to appropriate statistical information held by bus operators. It will also safeguard matters of commercial confidentiality.

Mr. Michael Moore: I do not think that any of us had expected to reach the new clause, but after the Minister has so generously responded to serious concerns raised by Liberal Democrats in Committee, it would be churlish of us not to acknowledge the major steps forward that he has taken. The habit of the Committee was for members to


write home to their mother or wife on the occasion of such a minor triumph. We have had the pen ready and the postage stamp prepared, and we will send that letter off tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour

New Clause 10

VARIATIONS: SUPPLEMENTARY

'.—(1) The relevant references to the authority or authorities in relation to a quality partnership scheme—

(a) include a local transport authority if it has been varied so that it relates to that authority's area, but
(b) do not include a local transport authority if it has been varied so that it no longer relates to that authority's area.

(2) But if (although the scheme does not relate to a local transport authority's area) it would do by reason of a proposed variation, those references (apart from those in section 101) include that authority.

(3) The relevant references (apart from that in section 97(1)) to the authority or authorities in relation to a quality partnership scheme—

(a) include a traffic regulation authority if it has been varied so that it specifies traffic regulation facilities, but
(b) do not include a traffic regulation authority if it has been varied so that it no longer specifies such facilities.

(4) But if (although the scheme does not specify facilities which are traffic regulation facilities in relation to a traffic regulation authority) it would do by reason of a proposed variation, those references (apart from those in section 101) include that authority.

(5) And if (although the scheme specifies facilities which are traffic regulation facilities in relation to a traffic regulation authority)—

(a) the traffic regulation order, or (where more than one) each of the traffic regulation orders, required to be made by that authority for the provision of those facilities has been revoked, and
(b) the scheme is proposed to be varied (but not so that it specifies other facilities which are traffic regulation facilities in relation to that authority),
the relevant references (apart from those in section 101) do not include that authority.

(6) For the purposes of this section the relevant references are those in—

(a) section 97(1) to (3),
(b) sections 98 to 102, and
(c) section 108(5B),
and paragraph 27(3) of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

(7) In this section "traffic regulation authority" means—

(a) a metropolitan district council,
(b) the Secretary of State, or
(c) the National Assembly for Wales.

(8) For the purposes of this section facilities are traffic regulation facilities, in relation to a traffic regulation authority and a quality partnership scheme, if that authority was required to be a maker of the scheme because it originally specified those facilities or would have been required to be a maker of it had it done so.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 9

PLANS AND STRATEGIES: SUPPLEMENTARY

'.—(1) In carrying out their functions under sections 92 to 95, a local transport authority must have regard to any guidance concerning—

(a) the content of local transport plans (and bus strategies),
(b) the preparation of such plans (and strategies),
(c) the alteration and replacement of such plans (and strategies), and
(d) the publication and making available of such plans (and strategies) as originally made and as altered or replaced,
which is issued from time to time by the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales).

(2) In developing their policies under section 92(1) and their bus strategy, a local transport authority must have regard to the transport needs of persons who are elderly or have mobility problems.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 93

FURTHER PROVISION ABOUT PLANS

Amendments made: No. 149, in page 56, line 29, leave out—
'(their "current local transport plan")'.

No. 150, in page 56, line 34, leave out "subsection (5)" and insert—
'section (Plans and strategies: supplementary)(1)'.

No. 151, in page 56, line 37, leave out "current".

No. 152, in page 56, line 45, at end insert—
'(4A) Where a local transport authority have, before the coming into force of section 92, prepared and published a document which

(a) contains policies developed by them for the purposes described in subsection (1)(a) of that section, and
(b) was prepared and published in accordance with guidance issued by the Secretary of State (as respects England) or the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales),
that document shall be taken to be the authority's local transport plan.
(4B) But, in the case of a document which is a local transport plan by virtue of subsection (4A), subsection (2) requires its replacement not later than—

(a) 31st March 2006, if it relates to an area in England, or
(b) such date as is specified in an order made by the National Assembly for Wales, if it relates to an area in Wales,
(rather than not later than five years after the date on which it was made).'.

No. 153, in page 57, line 1, leave out subsection (5).—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 94

BUS STRATEGIES

Amendment made: No. 154, in page 57, leave out lines 24 and 25.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 95

CONSULTATION AND PUBLICITY ABOUT BUS STRATEGIES

Amendments made: No. 155, in page 57, line 38, leave out from beginning to "whose" in line 41 and insert—
'any other relevant local authority'.

No. 156, in page 58, line 5, at end insert—
'( ) For the purpose of subsection (1)(a) the following are relevant local authorities—

(a) local transport authorities,
(b) metropolitan district councils,
(c) London transport authorities, and
(d) councils in Scotland;
(except that, in the case of consultation by a Passenger Transport Authority for a passenger transport area, a council for a metropolitan district comprised in the area is not a relevant local authority).'.

No. 157, in page 58, line 7, leave out "(their "current bus strategy")".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 96

ROLE OF METROPOLITAN DISTRICT COUNCILS

Amendments made: No. 158, in page 58, line 17, leave out "and (5) and 94(3)" and insert—
', 94(3) and (Plans and strategies: supplementary)'.

No. 159, in page 58, line 19, at end insert—
'( ) Section 93(4A) applies in the case of a Passenger Transport Authority for a passenger transport area only if the document to which it refers has been prepared and published by—

(a) that Authority, and
(b) the councils for the metropolitan districts comprised in the area,
acting jointly.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 97

QUALITY PARTNERSHIP SCHEMES

Amendments made: No. 160, in page 58, line 24, leave out "current".

No. 301, in page 58, line 28, after "limit" insert "traffic congestion,".

No. 161, in page 59, line 7, at end insert—
'(other than a road for which the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales is the traffic authority)'.

No. 162, in page 59, line 8, leave out "must be" and insert—
'may not be made unless it is'.

No. 163, in page 59, line 9, at end insert—
'(6A) If the provision of any of the facilities requires the making of a traffic regulation order in respect of a road for which the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales is the traffic authority, the scheme may not be made unless it is made by—

(a) the local transport authority or authorities, and
(b) the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales,
acting jointly.

(6B) Where subsection (6) or (6A) applies so that a metropolitan district council, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales is a maker of the scheme, then (subject to section 102(7)(b) and (9)) the relevant references to the authority or authorities include (as well as the local transport authority or authorities) the metropolitan district council, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.

(6C) For the purposes of subsection (6B) the relevant references are—

(a) subsections (2) and (3),
(b) sections 98 to 102, and
(c) section I08(5B),
and paragraph 27(3) of Schedule 9 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.'.

No. 164, in page 59, line 15, after "another" insert "such".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 98

NOTICE AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

Amendments made: No. 165, in page 59, line 21, leave out subsection (3).

No. 166, in page 59, line 31, leave out from beginning to second "any" in line 32 and insert—
'any other relevant local authority'.

No. 167, in page 59, line 38, at end insert—
'( ) For the purpose of subsection (4)(c) the following are relevant local authorities—

(a) local transport authorities,
(b) metropolitan district councils,
(c) London transport authorities, and
(d) councils in Scotland.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 101

EFFECT OF SCHEME

Amendments made: No. 168, in page 61, line 12, at end insert—
'( ) Nor does it apply in the case of the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales if he or it is unable to provide the facilities owing to the variation or revocation of a traffic regulation order.'.

No. 169, in page 61, line 13, leave out subsection (3).—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 102

VARIATION OR REVOCATION OF SCHEME

Amendments made: No. 170, in page 61, line 36, leave out "only".

No. 171, in page 61, line 39, leave out "termination" and insert "revocation of the scheme".

No. 172, in page 61, line 41, after "scheme" insert "under subsection (1)".

No. 173, in page 61, line 44, leave out—
'or the revocation of a scheme'
and insert—
'under subsection (1), or the revocation of a scheme under subsection (2),'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 105

QUALITY CONTRACTS SCHEMES

Amendments made: No. 174, in page 62, line 34, leave out "current".

No. 404, in page 63, line 9 leave out "exclusive".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 106

NOTICE AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

Amendments made: No. 175, in page 64, line 1, leave out from beginning to "any" in line 2 and insert—
'any other relevant local authority'.

No. 176, in page 64, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) For the purpose of subsection (3)(d) the following are relevant local authorities—

(a) local transport authorities,
(b) district councils in England,
(c) London transport authorities, and
(d) councils in Scotland.'.—[Mir. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 107

APPROVAL OF PROPOSED SCHEME

Amendments made: No. 177, in page 64, line 18, leave out from beginning to "may" in line 19 and insert—
'Any person consulted under section 106(3)'.

No. 178, in page 64, line 34, leave out—
'as proposed under subsection (1)'
and insert "without modifications".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 108

MAKING OF A SCHEME

Amendment made: No. 179, in page 65, line 12, at end insert—
'(5A) The scheme may include provision—

(a) varying or revoking any quality partnership scheme which only relates to the area of the authority, or combined area of the authorities, by which the scheme is made, or
(b) varying any other quality partnership scheme to the extent that it so relates.
(5B) If provision is made under subsection (5A)(b) to vary the quality partnership scheme so that it no longer so relates, such of the authorities by which it was made as did not make the quality contracts scheme—

(a) may (subject to the provision so made) vary it if they decide that it is appropriate to do so, or
(b) may revoke it if all persons who have given an undertaking to provide a service to a standard specified in the scheme consent to the revocation of the scheme (which consent must not be unreasonably withheld);
and subsections (3) and (4) of section 102 apply to a variation or revocation under this subsection.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 111

TENDERING FOR QUALITY CONTRACTS

Amendment made: No. 180, in page 66, line 27, leave out from "years" to end of line 29.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 113

VARIATION OR REVOCATION OF SCHEME

Amendments made: No. 181, in page 67, line 43, after "scheme" insert—
'(other than any to whose area the scheme no longer relates)'.

No. 182, in page 68, line 1, at end insert—
'or

(c) providing for new exclusions from the scheme or for the variation or revocation of existing exclusions.'.

No. 183, in page 68, line 9, after "authorities" insert—
'who made the scheme (other than any to whose area the scheme no longer relates)'.

No. 184, in page 68, line 19, at end insert—
'and section 111 applies to a varied scheme but subject to regulations so made.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 116

JOINT AND THROUGH TICKETING SCHEMES FOR BUSES

Amendment made: No. 185, in page 69, line 22, leave out "current".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 117

NOTICE AND CONSULTATION REQUIREMENTS

Amendment made: No. 302, in page 70, line 1, leave out "introduce" and insert "make".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 118

MAKING OF SCHEME

Amendment made: No. 303, in page 70, line 32, at end insert—
'(5) The authority or authorities may vary or revoke the scheme; and the variation or revocation is subject to the same procedure as the making of the scheme, except to the extent that that procedure is modified by regulations made by the appropriate national authority.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 120

INFORMATION ABOUT BUS SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 186, in page 70, line 38, leave out "current".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 124

MANDATORY CONCESSIONS OUTSIDE GREATER LONDON

Mr. Jenkin: I beg to move amendment No. 300, in page 72, line 33, at end insert—
'or that he will receive discretionary travel concessions which are at least equivalent to the concessions provided for under subsection (1).'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 146, in clause 125, page 72, line 43, leave out from "attained" to end of line 45 and insert—
'the age of sixty years or over.'.
Government amendments Nos. 187 and 188.

Mr. Jenkin: At this late hour, I shall explain the purpose of amendment No. 300, which amends clause 124(3). The clause contains the necessary technical definitions and regulation-making powers so that the price of the bus pass can be altered in a concessionary fares scheme.
Subsection (3) states:
A person may agree with the travel concession authority that he is not entitled to be provided with concessions under subsection (1) for a period in return for being entitled during that period to receive travel concessions under a scheme under section 93 of the Transport Act 1985.
I confess that I have not made a detailed study of section 93 of the Transport Act 1985, but the amendment would add to the end of clause 124 the words,
or that he will receive discretionary travel concessions which are at least equivalent to the concessions provided for under subsection (1).
12 midnight
The amendment's importance is immediately apparent. When a person benefits from a non-statutory concessionary travel scheme, the local authority should be released from its obligation to provide that person with statutory concessions under the Bill. Groups of local transport authorities that offer non-statutory concessionary travel schemes, should not need to offer a statutory discretionary fare scheme under the Bill.
I hope that the Minister realises that several transport authorities have made representations on the matter. I hope that he will accept the amendment or undertake to accept a similar amendment at a later stage.

Mr. Moore: As the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said, the hour is late and the fluidity of our discussions is not what it might be, not least since our earlier exchange of acronyms.
Amendment No. 146 strikes at the heart of major discrimination in the Bill on concessionary fare schemes. My hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) believes that it would be unwise for him to speak about the amendment because he might have to declare an interest: under our proposal, he would qualify for a concessionary bus pass in 2007; under the Government's provisions, he would have to wait until 2012. As we get closer to 2007, the matter worries him greatly.

Mr. Raynsford: When will the hon. Gentleman qualify?

Mr. Moore: In my case, it does not matter which scheme is implemented. If I am spared, it will be a wee while before I qualify. [Interruption.] I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Bath has rejoined us to hear us fight the case for an earlier bus pass for him.
In Committee, the Minister did not tackle the fundamental point and identify the reason for the discrimination. He hid behind the fact that pensions legislation refers to equalisation by 2020. That is a long time to wait, and many organisations, including Parity, Age Concern and the National Federation of Post Office and British Telecom Pensioners, fail to understand the reasons for the discrimination.
The European courts, especially in the Atkins case, have failed to back the proposal that the amendment presents and have supported the Government's position. However, in case the Minister is tempted to hide behind that defence again, the Government won the case because the issue was further confused by others, not least young people, who were entitled to concessionary fares.
In Committee, the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) tried to clarify the cost of the amendment. He is a diligent Member and he contributed greatly to those proceedings. In his own way, he hoped to back the broad principle that we support and said:
I do not look forward to being issued with a bus pass, but it will at least qualify me as a pensioner to sit in the pub, twang my braces, bemoan the fate of modern society and comment on every subject under the sun.—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 29 February 2000; c. 811.]
We all denied that he was up to that already.
Our amendment has broad cross-party support so we hope that the Minister has changed his mind in the weeks that he has had to consider it and sees fit to support us.

Mr. Snape: I hope to follow the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) without repeating anything that I said in Committee, except that asked the Liberal party how much the proposal would cost. Answer came there none, and answer came there none tonight. I hate to inject a controversial note, but I voted against it, as did my hon. Friends, on the ground that it represented a dash of cheap populism—not that that is common, of course.

Mr. David Taylor: It came from the Liberal party's vast store.

Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend's sedentary comment is somewhat unkind. I am not sure how vast that store is, but that is how the proposal struck me. The Liberal party wrote to various people in various parts of the country, usually in constituencies represented by Liberals. They wrote to members of the Committee, me included—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) shakes his head and professes to know nothing about it, but of course he did that. I do not complain; that is politics.
Most of the letters accusing me and other Labour members of the Committee of sex discrimination and refusing to allow elderly gentlemen to participate in a pensioner scheme—I almost fall into that category as the magic date is approaching—came from constituencies represented by Liberals. I have no objections as that is part of the rough and tumble and hurly-burly of politics, but I still want to know how much the proposal will cost. It is incumbent on the Liberal party, before engaging in cheap populism, to tell us—[Interruption.] I did not; I voted against. The Liberal party must tell us the cost.

Mr. Don Foster: May I attempt to answer both the hon. Gentleman's points briefly? The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who served as the Whip in Committee, was the first to express concern about the letters. I assured him, as I assure the hon. Gentleman, that although I wish that I had thought of writing such letters, another organisation—not my party—wrote them without our knowledge or agreement.
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about cost, but it would be absolutely zero in the next 18 months. The Government, for the past three years, have made great play of their introduction of the concessionary fares scheme. However, that will not happen for another 18 months. As the cost of their proposed package is about £40 million, it is not unreasonable to suppose that


supporting our amendment represents a cost of about an additional £10 million. As that is so little, I am sure that he can support us.

Mr. Snape: The cost is part of the magic penny that we have heard about. [Interruption.] In fact, it is a small part of it and we are grateful to the hon. Member for Bath for that clarification. However, I say to him and the hon. Member for Ettrick, Tweeddale and Lauderdale—

Mr. Moore: Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale.

Mr. Snape: I will get it right one of these days. If the hon. Gentlemen moved to my constituency—I should be glad to welcome them, although they would have to shed the false doctrines that they have followed for years—and waited until the legal retirement age, they would enjoy free bus and rail travel across the west midlands conurbation. I hazard a guess that that scheme, which was provided and maintained by Labour local authorities in the teeth of hostility from Conservative Governments over the years, is far more generous than those in Bath and Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale, or whatever that constituency is called.
Before the Liberals go round the country stirring up discontent in such an appalling way and attack hon. Members who merely seek financial clarification of some of their more outrageous proposals, they should sit down with us and work out which parts of the country have the most generous pro-pensioner schemes. It will come as no surprise to them—it will certainly come as no surprise to the Conservative party—that the most generous schemes are in areas that have been controlled by Labour for many years. [Interruption.] That includes areas that were involved in what happened last Thursday.
Regardless of what happened then, we are talking about places that are still controlled by the Labour party. We are proud of the way in which we looked after pensioners and gave them travel facilities, and we will take no lessons from the Liberals. Unless the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), who keeps describing me as his guru—after my last intervention, I am not sure whether I still qualify for that title—has a spare ten million in his back pocket, I suggest he tell the Liberals to get lost and stop indulging in the populism that they love so much, especially at this time of night.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: The hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) spoke of a certain type of discrimination. Although I do not agree with what he said, I see the point that he was making; but I want the Minister to clarify the position relating to a different type of discrimination involving concessionary fares.
Clause 124(1)(a) makes it clear—although I appreciate that there has been no argument about this tonight—that eligible journeys are those between places in a particular travel concession authority area. That is a reasonable point, but I want to ask the Minister about his attitude to people who are in the position of my constituents who live on the edge of greater London. The area referred to, for their purposes, will be Epping Forest or, perhaps, Essex, but not Greater London.
It so happens that most of my constituents who live on the London-Essex border find themselves in an inequitable position. No, iniquitous. Well, an unfair position. [Laughter.] It is awfully late; "inequitable" will do.
I know of a case in which the border between Essex and London falls in the middle of a semi-detached house. The pensioner living on one side of the border receives concessionary fares, while the one living on the other side does not. The pensioner who does not receive the concessionary fares is the fortunate one, benefiting—owing to living in my constituency in Essex—from all that Epping Forest district council and Essex county council can provide. I appreciate that the responsibility falls on the local authority as well as the Government to arrange these matters, but I ask the Minister to tell us how the Government view the inevitable unfairness.
I have received many letters from constituents. In their 1998 White Paper "New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", the Government announced:
We will introduce a national minimum standard for local authority concessionary fare schemes".
Only a few months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister made an announcement to the House—in his last transport statement: the one that did not really say anything that he had not said before—that gave the distinct impression that the Government would fund concessionary fares. Pensioners in my constituency who do not benefit from concessionary fares were extremely pleased about that, and wrote to me in droves saying how wonderful the Deputy Prime Minister was to do this. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) says "Vote Labour". I am glad to say that last week people did not do so. It is clear why they did not, and I will tell him why. [Interruption.] I am sorry. I thought that it was the hon. Member for Bath who said "Vote Labour". Anyway, a Liberal Democrat Member said it. It is a slight change from last week, when Labour Members said "Vote Liberal". Of course, we are becoming used to that: we understand the anti-Conservative alliance, and the reason for it.
12.15 am
I will not stray from the point, despite the lateness of the hour. I ask the Minister to confirm that my constituents have been misled in thinking that the Government were going to fund their concessionary fares. The Deputy Prime Minister got a lot of credit for what he said but he did not mean it. He wanted my constituents to believe that they would benefit considerably from concessionary fares. It now appears that they will not do so. It is a genuine question. I ask the Minister to comment on it.

Mr. Peter Atkinson: At this late hour and briefly, may I press the Minister on the unanswered question that was left over from the Committee when we dealt with concessionary fares: what happens to those authorities that have a token scheme? All this relates to bus or rail travel and to half-priced concessionary fares, but nothing has been said about people such as my constituents who have no access to bus or rail travel.
My local authority, properly, operates a token system because that is fair to all pensioners, regardless of whether they have access to bus or train travel. Many pensioners


in country areas who cannot travel by bus save their tokens and then take taxis to and from the shops because that is the only way that they can travel.
What the Government propose, with money to be put into the scheme for half-price travel, leaves such other schemes high and dry. The Minister said nothing in Committee about what will happen, who will fund those other schemes and how a token scheme will be funded once the new scheme comes in. I hope that, in the last minutes of our debate, he might be able to answer the question that has been troubling pensioners in my constituency.

Mr. Hill: I shall deal first with amendment No. 300. I fear that we find it technically rather strange. Clause 124(3) already provides—I hope clearly—for an individual elderly person to opt for an alternative that the local authority might provide, rather than the statutory minimum. We included that provision because we entirely recognised that some local authorities run schemes based on tokens—exactly the point that the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson)—

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Hill: Let me at least tell the hon. Gentleman why we find it a strange amendment and then he can intervene.
We were aware that some local authorities, as the hon. Member for Hexham has pointed out, run schemes based on tokens, which may be used on taxis as well as on buses. Such schemes may be particularly valued by elderly people, even if they do not technically conform with the statutory minimum.

Mr. Jenkin: My amendment provides for someone who uses a scheme that is provided not by their own transport authority—their local authority—but by a consortium of transport authorities, or a passenger transport authority.

Mr. Hill: Let me continue with my explanation of the difficulties that the Government have with the amendment.
To add a provision for an elderly person to be able to opt for an "equivalent" scheme seems to add nothing to the clause. Indeed, the amendment brings in a problem: who is to decide what is "equivalent"? That seems a strange and difficult judgment. It would not be fair to anyone for the Bill to impose the task on them—although another problem with the amendment is that it is silent on who is to decide equivalence. The statutory minimum is what the Bill says it is. The clause allows an individual to opt for an alternative if they prefer it. That seems to provide all reasonable flexibility. Therefore, I do not feel able to accept the amendment.
Amendment No. 146 would equalise the age at which men and women become eligible for concessionary fares. Currently, eligibility is tied to pensionable age, with women qualifying for the state pension at 60, while men have to wait until 65. The hon. Member for—I am delighted to have the opportunity to pronounce this wonderful constituency name—Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) has expressed very well the view

that the age at which people qualify for concessionary fares should be the same for men and for women, and that the common age should be 60, not 65. I certainly acknowledge that view.
I have to say, however, as I said repeatedly in Committee, that I believe that there is another view. It seems to me that it is not unreasonable that the age at which one becomes eligible for financial benefit in the form of a pension should be the same as the age at which one becomes eligible for financial benefit in the form of reduced bus fares. That raises the further issue of whether it is right for that age to be different between men and women. Again, however, I have to give the same reply that I gave in Committee: the issue has been addressed by Parliament, and legislation has already been passed to equalise the two ages.

Mr. Don Foster: It is the same speech.

Mr. Hill: If the hon. Gentleman protests that that is word for word what I said before, let me add a different word. If the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale really profoundly disagrees with the proposition that a bus pass should be available at the same time as other benefits to senior citizens, it is up to him and other Liberal Democrat Members to seek to introduce other legislation to equalise—

Mr. Foster: That is what my hon. Friend is trying to do.

Mr. Hill: No; Liberal Democrats should introduce a general provision. We are talking about provisions that would apply across the board and not simply to the exceptional case of bus passes, and equalisation of the two ages would have to be done in primary legislation. The Government stand by the fact that the Pensions Act 1995 states quite clearly that the common age for men and women alike will be 65, and that that will be phased in in 2010 and 2020. In the light of that legislation, I really do not feel that I am able to accept amendment No. 143.
I should deal with the issues raised by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), who dwells on the edge of London. The concessionary fare laws have always been based on the principle of local authority discretion. I am not persuaded that that is so wrong. Local authorities are best placed to take decisions on local transport.
The hon. Lady also raised the funding issue. We have certainly said that local government will be reimbursed by us for the costs of the statutory minimum.
I am afraid that that is all rather bad news for Opposition Members.

Mrs. Laing: rose—

Mr. Hill: However, I have glad tidings for the House: I shall give way to the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Laing: I thank the Minister very much for giving way, and for answering my question directly. The point, however, is that the Deputy Prime Minister has given the impression to my constituents that concessionary fares would be funded by the Government. Can the Minister


tell my constituents that the Deputy Prime Minister definitely gave them the wrong impression, and that there will be no funding from the Government?

Mr. Hill: The idea of my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister giving the wrong impression is, of course, a contradiction in terms. He did not do so. Moreover, the fact is that the Government are funding the concessionary bus scheme at half the level of bus fares, and we mean to go further.
Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 make our proposals for the statutory minimum standard scheme more generous, and will make it more widely available to those who can least afford to travel. The amendments propose that the travel pass for the half-fare scheme on local buses will be free of charge instead of having a maximum charge of £5, as in our original proposal. We estimate that an extra 2.2 million pensioners will benefit from the change. The extra cost is estimated at £14 million, and that sum will be added to the revenue support grant available to local authorities on the same basis as the cost of the original half-fare proposal. That constructive change shows our continued commitment to an inclusive society and to making travel opportunities more widely available. I commend it to the House.

Mr. Jenkin: I was expecting an intervention from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), accusing the Minister of cheap populism. It would have been churlish for him to do so, but it would suggest that there may be a double standard. He accused the Liberal Democrats of cheap populism; usually they are guilty of extravagant populism. The populism of the Government is a good deal more economical than that of the Liberal Democrats.
The proposal provides for an alternative to the travel concession authorities scheme if it is a scheme that is provided by way of section 93 of the Transport Act 1985. It does not provide for an alternative that is provided by some other means. If somebody is receiving a discretionary travel concession by some other means, the proposal does not provide an exclusion. I wonder whether the Minister could explain that—perhaps at another time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 125

MANDATORY CONCESSIONS: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendment made: No. 187, in page 73, line 29, leave out from "124(1)" to end of line 36 and insert—
'(2) A travel concession authority must not make any charge for the issue of a travel concession permit.'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 130

MANDATORY CONCESSIONS IN GREATER LONDON

Amendment made: No. 188, in page 76, line 44, leave out from "section" to end of line 8 on page 77 and insert—
'243, after subsection (5) insert—
(6) No charge may be made for the issue to a person to whom subsection (1)(b) of section 242 above applies of a travel concession permit relating to the concession specified in subsection (8) of that section.".'. —[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 131

AGREEMENTS PROVIDING FOR SERVICE SUBSIDIES

Amendments made: No. 189, in page 77, line 20, leave out "current".

No. 304, in page 77, line 21, after "of insert "traffic congestion,".

No. 190, in page 77, line 22, leave out "current".

No. 191, in page 77, line 25, leave out from "their" to end of line 26 and insert "bus strategy;".

No. 192, in page 77, line 28, leave out—
'current bus strategy (within that meaning)'
and insert "bus strategy".

No. 193, in page 77, line 31, leave out—
'current bus strategy (within that meaning)'
and insert "bus strategy".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 132

GRANTS TO BUS SERVICE OPERATORS

Amendments made: No. 194, in page 77, line 45, after "State" insert—
'with the approval of the Treasury'.

No. 195, in page 77, line 46, leave out—
', with the approval of the Treasury,'.

No. 196, in page 78, line 1, after "State" insert—
'with the approval of the Treasury'.

No. 197, in page 78, line 2, leave out—
', with the approval of the Treasury,'.

No. 198, in page 78, line 6, leave out from "as" to end of line 8 and insert "may be determined by—

(a) the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury (as respects England), or
(b) the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales).'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 134

NON-METROPOLITAN TRANSPORT GRANTS

Amendments made: No. 199, in page 79, line 2, after "State" insert—
'with the approval of the Treasury'.

No. 200, in page 79, line 3, leave out—
', with the approval of the Treasury,'.

No. 201, in page 79, line 14, leave out from "as" to end of line 15 and insert "may be determined by—

(a) the Secretary of State with the approval of the Treasury (as respects England), or
(b) the National Assembly for Wales (as respects Wales).'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 138

PART II: REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Amendment made: No. 202, in page 80, line 26, after "Part" insert—
'(whether alone or jointly with the National Assembly for Wales)'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Clause 140

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendments made: No. 203, in page 81, leave out lines 4 and 5.

No. 204, in page 81, line 9, at end insert—
' "London transport authority" means the Greater London Authority, a London borough council or the Common Council of the City of London,'.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Schedule 10

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS ABOUT LOCAL TRANSPORT

Amendments made: No. 305, in page 184, line 30, at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (6), for the words following paragraph (b) substitute "to have regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.".'.

No. 205, in page 184, line 31, leave out—
'current bus strategy (within the meaning of section 95(2) of the Transport Act 2000)'
and insert "bus strategy".

No. 206, in page 185, line 2, leave out—
'In section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984'
and insert—
'The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 has effect subject to the following amendments.
6A. In section 1'.

No. 207, in page 185, line 11, at end insert—
'6B.—(l) Paragraph 27 of Schedule 9 (variation and revocation of orders) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for "sub-paragraph (2)" substitute "sub-paragraphs (2) and (3)".

(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
(3) Where an order is required for the provision of facilities pursuant to a quality partnership scheme made under Part II of the Transport Act 2000 by more than one authority—

(a) it may not be varied or revoked by virtue of this paragraph by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales unless he or it has consulted the other authority or authorities who made the scheme, and
(b) it may not be varied or revoked by virtue of this paragraph by any other authority without the consent of that other authority or those other authorities.".'.

No. 208, in page 185, line 14, leave out from beginning to "paragraph" and insert—
'(1) Section 26(1) (conditions attached to PSV operator's licence) is amended as follows.
(2) In'.

No. 209, in page 185, line 15, after "2000" insert—
'(3) After that paragraph insert'.

No. 306, in page 185, line 25, at end insert—
'( ) In subsection (7), for the words from "so to conduct" to the end substitute "to have regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.".'.

No. 210, in page 185, line 26, leave out "current".

No. 307, in page 185, line 27, leave out "subsection (8)" and insert "that subsection".

No. 211, in page 185, line 28, leave out "current".

No. 212, in page 185, line 30, leave out from "their" to end of line 31 and insert "bus strategy;".

No. 213, in page 185, line 33, leave out—
'current bus strategy (within that meaning)'
and insert "bus strategy".—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

Crimestoppers

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Robert Ainsworth.]

Mr. Bob Russell: While sensible, law-abiding citizens—but not politicians and criminals—are safely tucked up in bed, it is reassuring to know that Crimestoppers is available around the clock in the constant fight to tackle crime.
The title of this debate, as listed on the Order Paper, needs clarifying. It would be more accurate if it read that Government support was needed for Crimestoppers. Astonishingly, Crimestoppers does not receive any financial support from the Government. It is a charity, funded in the main by donations and fund-raising events. Yet its success rate in bringing criminals to justice is such that, if it received supplementary financial backing, even more would be arrested.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unfortunate that the Conservative Front Bench is vacant during this important debate—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is not in order for the Minister to make such an observation. Adjournment debates are the personal property of the hon. Member who is putting forward a subject. These are not general debates involving all Members of the House; they are between the hon. Member moving the motion and the Minister replying.

Mr. Russell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
The Crimestoppers Trust, with its national phone number of 0800 555 111, operating 24 hours a day, is the catalyst acting between business, the media, the community and the police to help to reduce crime, and it is doing just that.
Crimestoppers is now in its 12th year and covers the whole country, through 29 regions. Crimestoppers solves crimes that other methods cannot reach. It provides a safe and confidential means of identifying criminals. Intelligence and observation from members of the public, made anonymously, can lead to the apprehension of criminals who might otherwise escape detection. It means that people can report criminal activity without any fear for their own safety.
The statistics behind the Crimestoppers success story are amazing. In a reply to a parliamentary question that I tabled recently, I was told that, last year, as a direct result of people phoning Crimestoppers, a record 5,300 people were arrested and charged. The Crimestoppers organisation tells me that, in a large number of cases, the police had no previous knowledge of the criminal, or, if the person was known, he had not been connected with the crime reported by the caller.
Last year, calls to Crimestoppers led to the conviction of 38 people for murder, 22 for attempted murder, 13 for rape and 18 for sexual assault. Convictions for robbery totalled 202, for assault 181, for burglary 338, for firearms 28, for handling stolen goods 209, for arson 34, for theft 410, for vehicle crime 667, for fraud 141 and for various other offences 691.
The biggest single category was drugs, with 2,308 convictions. That is a matter to which Crimestoppers has given special attention with its SNAP—"Say no and phone"—campaign. The same number is involved: 0800 555 111. People are encouraged to phone with information about drug dealers. In one case, the Crimestoppers guarantee of anonymity led to the seizure of cocaine worth more than £200,000.
Since Crimestoppers was established, about 34,000 people have been arrested and charged with various crimes, ranging from murder and other serious assaults to drug dealing and theft. More than 300,000 anonymous calls have been made and property worth more than £42 million has been recovered. On average, each week, stolen property worth almost £60,000 is retrieved. In one case, a call to Devon and Cornwall Crimestoppers led to the arrest of three people responsible for several burglaries and to the recovery of 44 firearms.
Following the murder of a man in a midlands pub, one call to Crimestoppers named the two culprits. In the west country, a man was charged with five offences of indecent assault and gross indecency against young children after a call to Crimestoppers gave the only lead. Drug dealing from a Birmingham house was brought to the notice of the police thanks to a call to Crimestoppers. Those examples—and many more—prove the value of Crimestoppers and illustrate how much more could be achieved.
Tackling car theft is another area in which calls to Crimestoppers can lead to criminals being arrested. Vehicles with a combined value in excess of £1 million have been recovered thanks to tip-offs associated with the SMART—stop motor crime and ring today—campaign. Again, the same national freephone number is used: 0800 555 111. In the north of England, one call led to a person who admitted more than 500 offences of stealing cars.
Smuggling of tobacco and alcohol is a growth industry, with millions of pounds of revenue lost every year. The Tobacco Alliance, which represents many of the UK's 26,000 independent retailers of tobacco—mainly corner shops and newsagents—estimates that as much as 80 per cent. of the roll-your-own tobacco consumed in this country has been smuggled. For cigarettes, the figure is put at 25 per cent. and rising every year. As well as threatening small businesses, the illegal trade leads to under-age sales. The same thing happens with smuggled alcohol.
The alliance recommends Crimestoppers as the most effective way of reporting tobacco-related crime. Crimestoppers works in partnership with Customs and Excise in tackling the bootleggers, and its work has resulted in significant recoveries of smuggled tobacco and alcohol. The lost revenue is huge. Investment in Crimestoppers would more than pay for itself with the increase in the number of criminals who would be identified. For example, one tip-off led to five people being arrested. It was estimated that they had evaded some £750,000 in duty. Given the obvious benefits that Crimestoppers has proved it has in bringing the identity of criminals to the police, would not its success be greatly enhanced—with even more criminals being arrested—if the Government provided funds to extend the operation, including greater publicity, which is so vital?

Mr. Tony Colman: Obviously I am pleased with the hon. Gentleman's paeon of praise for


Crimestoppers, which is based in my constituency. Will he join me in the hope that, when the Minister visits Crimestoppers on 22 May, he will see for himself its excellent work and consider providing further funding?

Mr. Russell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am sure that the Minister will be well briefed when he visits the hon. Gentleman's constituency and that Crimestoppers will benefit as a result of that visit.
Backing from the media is crucial to publicising Crimestoppers. Newspapers, radio and television are to be congratulated and thanked for what they do. For example, tonight's issue of the Colchester-based Evening Gazette carries a report of a man who was shot in the face with an air gun. The final paragraph says:
Detectives hunting the gunman have appealed for anyone with information to contact them on Crimestoppers 0800 555 111.
Much more needs to be done to publicise Crimestoppers so that its number becomes as familiar as 999. Advertisement hoardings and more permanent poster displays should feature the number. It could also be included, at minimal cost, in Government publications and other public literature, and on the vast range of forms that people are required to fill in during the course of the year. An excellent example was set by Post Office Counters when it launched a campaign to tell the 28 million people who visit post offices each week about Crimestoppers. That is another reason for retaining the nationwide network of post offices.
Despite what has been achieved so far, research has shown that only a quarter of the population understand Crimestoppers. It is hoped that this will be improved by, for example, developing strategies within crime and disorder partnerships.
Using Crimestoppers is an easy way of talking to the police informally and anonymously. Every day, hundreds of people call Crimestoppers to help the police solve many crimes, not just the most serious ones. It is highly successful and proves that it is possible to do something to make society safer.
A person who phones Crimestoppers on 0800 555 111—from anywhere in the country—will not be asked for their name, address or phone number. The police will not seek to contact the person who has phoned. If people say that they want to phone again, or perhaps claim a reward, they are given a code number.
The director of Crimestoppers, Mr. Digby Carter, told me about a survey in Stockport, Greater Manchester, which revealed that the fear of intimation was so severe that 83 per cent. of residents said that it would prevent them from providing information directly to the police. However, the same survey reported that 76 per cent. said that they would use Crimestoppers.
Research has shown how important Crimestoppers information is in preventing crime as well as solving it. Indeed, research by the Vauxhall centre for the study of crime at the university of Luton shows that more than 40 per cent. of crimes revealed would not even have come to the notice of the police but for Crimestoppers. In nearly two-thirds of cases, offenders disclosed by Crimestoppers callers were previously unknown to the police—or known, but not suspected of the offence in question.
The Luton survey concluded that information provided anonymously by the public to Crimestoppers solves crimes at a rate likely to be the envy of police officers in general. In 63 per cent. of the cases the information provided to the police by Crimestoppers was crucial to the crime's detection, and in a further 27 per cent. it was useful.
Senior development fellow Mr. Alan Marlow, who conducted the research, commented:
Our research shows that Crimestoppers is highly productive. For example, each individual in one of the Crimestoppers Offices was responsible during the year for the apprehension of over 100 offenders not suspected of the offences in question.
On behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Deputy Assistant Commissioner Bill Griffiths of the Metropolitan police said of the survey:
Crimestoppers, with its guarantee of anonymity, and therefore safety from reprisals, does add real value to the work of the Police. The Police are clearly right to make a commitment to Crimestoppers. It is a best value operation, and we want to see its use increased still further.
Let me stress again that Crimestoppers is a charity. It has limited resources. The staff to volunteer ratio is 1:20. Each Crimestoppers arrest costs the trust £200, and there are 14 of those every day. Real support from the Government—not just warm words—is necessary if the Crimestoppers success story is to continue to develop.
A reward, paid anonymously, and without police involvement, is available to those who provide information that leads to an arrest and charge, but very few people ask for one. Last year, rewards represented only 2 per cent. of Crimestoppers' expenditure. Only six in every 100 callers who would qualify for a reward from the Crimestoppers Trust seek it.
Crimestoppers is not only of considerable value to the police in solving crime, it is also highly cost-effective so far as the taxpayer is concerned. The need for Crimestoppers has never been greater. Spending cuts in the police service and a reduction in the number of police officers mean that every effort must be made by the community to help in the fight against crime. Crimestoppers is already playing an active role in doing this.
For a relatively modest contribution to supplement the work of Crimestoppers, I urge the Government to meet with officials of the Crimestoppers Trust to see what level of aid is required. I gather that such a meeting is to take place soon. Last year, it cost £1,648,000 to operate Crimestoppers—the equivalent of the salaries of four premier division footballers. A pound for pound matching grant would more than pay for itself in the increase in the number of criminals brought to justice and the effect that it would have on preventing crime.
I hope that this early morning debate will make more people aware of the excellent work that Crimestoppers does. For those who need reminding, the number is freephone 0800 555 111.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I must first apologise for my earlier remarks, which I acknowledge were out of order.
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) for obtaining this important debate on Government support for Crimestoppers. As he will


acknowledge, many Members of the House are engaged with Crimestoppers campaigns in their areas—indeed, I have been involved in launching various initiatives in my area. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has brought this matter to the attention of the House.
It is important to emphasise the statistics involved. According to information supplied by the Crimestoppers Trust, the number of people arrested and charged for each of the past five years as a result of information supplied to Crimestoppers was as follows: in 1995, 3,355 people were arrested and charged; in 1996, 4,347 people were arrested and charged; in 1997, 4,726 people were arrested and charged; in 1998, 5,169 people were arrested and charged; and in 1999, the figure was 5,300.
The 5,300 arrests in 1999 were for very serious crimes, as the hon. Gentleman implied. Some 38 were for murder, 22 for attempted murder, 13 for rape, 202 for robbery, 181 for assault, 338 for burglary, 28 for firearms offences, 209 for handling stolen goods, 2,308 for drugs—a point that the hon. Gentleman made—34 for arson, 410 for theft, 667 for vehicle crime, 18 for sexual assault, 141 for fraud and 691 for other crimes. The hon. Gentleman has drawn attention to that substantial record of achievement in sponsoring this debate, for which I am grateful.
As the hon. Gentleman said, my officials are in regular and constant touch with Crimestoppers. I will be visiting the Crimestoppers Trust head office in Putney on 22 May. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) in dialogue with myself and others and, more widely, in promoting the work of Crimestoppers, which is very important.
The hon. Member for Colchester referred to several Crimestoppers campaigns—I shall focus on two of them. The first is the SMART campaign—"Stop motor crime and ring today". With that campaign, Crimestoppers has made a valuable contribution to the fight against vehicle crime—an activity that accounts for 20 per cent. of all recorded crime and costs us at least £3 billion a year. It is encouraging to see from statistics produced by Crimestoppers that, in 1999, the campaign resulted in 667 people being arrested and charged with vehicle crime offences—a 30 per cent. increase on the previous year. I welcome the success of that campaign.
The SNAP—"Say no and phone"—and "Rat on a Rat" campaigns to which the hon. Gentleman also referred are an important element of the work of Crimestoppers. The Government are also committed to a reduction in the misuse of illicit drugs and in associated crime. Two of the main aims of our anti-drugs strategy—"Tackling drugs to build a better Britain"—are to protect our communities from drug-related anti-social and criminal behaviour and to enable people with drug problems to overcome them and to live happy and crime-free lives.
The police give a high priority to tackling drug-related crime and to reducing street dealing. They recognise the added value of involving other partners, such as Crimestoppers, in tackling those aspects of crime.
The SNAP campaign urges people to inform Crimestoppers anonymously if they know of anyone who regularly supplies drugs or commits any drug-related crime. It success is greatly encouraging—I gave some of the statistics earlier.
Another excellent example of the collaborative approach was the Metropolitan police's Operation Crackdown. That was co-ordinated with Crimestoppers

and included an advertising campaign urging the public to "Rat on a Rat" by calling Crimestoppers. The organisation received more than 2,000 calls—300 pieces of intelligence were generated.
The success of "Rat on a Rat" demonstrated not only that the public want action against drugs, but the benefits to be reaped from involving Crimestoppers in police operations targeting such criminal activity. It highlights partnership at its best.
There is scope for the forging of closer links between Crimestoppers and other voluntary sector organisations working towards crime reduction—such as the National Neighbourhood Watch Association, Crime Concern, Victim Support and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. I should like such links to be developed further.
On 13 April, I chaired a meeting to which I invited representatives from those organisations and Crimestoppers to discuss the possibility of their working more closely, with Government support, to develop a clearer strategic approach, with the overall objective of helping to reduce crime and disorder. We felt that the ambition of crime and disorder partnerships should be to nurture those organisations in local communities. There were instances of them working together on an ad hoc basis, but we believe that there is significant potential to increase such links.
The active community element reflected in the different orientations of those organisations brings together people who could be more effectively associated in the campaign to strengthen their communities against the criminals in their midst. That would be positive for all of us. We are working hard on that matter, although there is no intention to deprioritise the contribution of Crimestoppers or of any of the other organisations. When they all work together, the sum of their parts is greater than the whole.
In that context, the National Neighbourhood Watch Association is organising a seminar on 7 July. We hope that representatives from that wide range of organisations will be able to consider ways of creating the closer links to which I have referred so as to reduce crime and disorder. We hope to produce papers setting a framework for achieving that closer co-operation, nationally and locally, for consideration at the conference.

Mr. Russell: Will the Minister say how many of the other organisations that he mentioned receive Government financial support?

Mr. Clarke: I shall come to that well-made point shortly.
Although voluntary sector organisations generally support the idea of more strategic link-up and although some have expressed concern that they might not have sufficient resources to reach out to other organisations, a significant role can be played by considering in a co-ordinated fashion what national support we offer them. I do not have the figures for which the hon. Gentleman asked, but the Government directly support the other organisations, such as NACRO, neighbourhood watch, Victim Support and Crime Concern, that I mentioned.
We set up the seminar on 13 April because we believe that we should think much more coherently about the support that we give to all the organisations that work to develop an active community. Perhaps I should confess


to the hon. Gentleman that I was tempted to announce a grant to Crimestoppers tonight, because I acknowledge that there is a strong case for giving it financial support. I am not announcing that grant in response to this debate not because we have any questions about Crimestoppers, which we value and esteem, but because we want to ensure that we have a coherent approach for all the organisations, so that they work together on the framework.
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Putney that we are committed to supporting Crimestoppers financially in the same way that we are committed to supporting the other organisations. However, we are keen to ensure that the Home Office does not provide a bit of money here or a bit of money there to the range of different organisations. With them, the Home Office should consider properly how to provide support so that we can maximise its impact.
We are not imposing a policy on the organisations. Neighbourhood watch, NACRO, Crime Concern, Victim Support and Crimestoppers, with which I have had a constructive dialogue, all recognised at the seminar on 13 April that they, as well as the general crime reduction initiative, will benefit if we can co-ordinate our efforts. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that, although I am not being gracious enough to offer Crimestoppers X amount of money as a result of this debate, I acknowledge the major contribution that it and the other organisations can make. We shall provide funding in that context.
I mentioned the seminar that will take place in July. At that seminar, I hope that we shall reach conclusions about precisely what form of support should be offered and how it should be provided. Although support from headquarters is important, we should try to ensure—by using the web and electronic and other means—that organisations throughout the country make a greater impact by working together in the communities where that is most important.
I can say particularly bluntly at this time of night that some of the organisations compete for members and in their activities and commitments. None of them want to do that—that is not their ambition—because they want to work together. The Government have a catalytic role to play that they have not played in the past. That is why we held a seminar on 13 April and will hold a conference on 7 July. I hope that, through those meetings, we will be able to construct a coherent approach to all these issues.
At the meeting on 13 April, it was decided that there should be two further meeting with officials and representatives—on 12 May and 12 June—to draw up papers commissioned for the seminar on 7 July. Contributions will address several subjects. The first is how best to achieve close co-operation between the relevant organisations at national and local level and the

second is consideration of the forms of support, including training, that the organisations need. As we involve volunteers so much, training is important.
The third subject is what business involvement is most useful. Several business organisations contribute, in different ways, to Crimestoppers and other bodies, and are often unaware of how best to focus their energy. We can help in that regard. The fourth issue is what are the best sources of information and how that information should be disseminated, hence the points that I made about the web. The fifth serious matter is the Home Office funding arrangements, which the hon. Gentleman raised and which others have mentioned.
The Home Office intends to provide papers, on the basis of information received, to set out a framework for a much more co-ordinated approach by voluntary sector organisations. Those papers will be considered at the conference on 7 July. I know that the hon. Gentleman's comments will be given full consideration at that event.
I know that the hon. Gentleman, like my hon. Friend the Member for Putney and myself, is a strong, committed supporter of Crimestoppers, but he knows that organisations such as neighbourhood watch, Victim Support and Crime Concern can make a major contribution. He will agree that everything that we can do to get such organisations working together is positive, and I know that he will encourage such co-operation.
As I said, I was tempted to make an announcement about the funding that we will provide for Crimestoppers, but I did not do so because we have been considering carefully the request for financial support from the director of the Crimestoppers trust. We have considered the application in the context of how we can best deploy our resources to reduce crime. We hope shortly to make a decision in the wider context of drawing up the strategic framework.
Crimestoppers can be confident that because it has a long track record, to which I have already referred, it will be well funded, but I shall not give the hon. Member for Colchester the gratification, if that is the right word, of saying that I will give him X amount of cash this evening. I know that he will join me in urging Crimestoppers to work with other organisations concerned with building an active community.
My request for the hon. Gentleman's support is gratuitous because Crimestoppers itself is entirely committed to that end. Developing an active community is very important to us, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing this Adjournment debate and airing some of the issues. I am especially grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Putney for his consistent campaigning with me and others on behalf of Crimestoppers. I hope that I have set out the Government's approach on these important matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to One o'clock.